Purchasing -- Should I buy D7100 (cheaper) or D7200 (more features?)
- Thread starter algmiyazaki
- Start date
Mathmattx12
New member
So very much like this thread. I am in the same situation. Are the new AF-P lenses compatible with the 7200?
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
From what I have read, since the lens has no VR switch (dumb), you will not be able to disable VR on a D7200 unless and until Nikon provides a firmware upgrade to allow disabling VR from the menu. Which means, can you use this lens on a tripod with a D7200?
Danno
Senior Member
I have not had the 7100 I got a really good deal on the 7200 and jumped on it about 18 months ago. I have not been disappointed. I am very happy with the camera and I love it with the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 lens for wild life. I would go for the 7200 and save a bit for the glass.
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
With the introduction of the D7500, the prices for the D7200 should start to fall. While the benefits of the D7200 over the D7100 are small enough that I would never consider upgrading from a D7100 to a D7200, I think the benefits of the D7200 warrant the D7200 for an original purchase. Conversely I don't believe the D7500 is worth the additional money over the D7200/D7100.
I have a D7100 and a D500, so with the D7200 ranging in-between those two, I think I have a pretty good idea how those compare. If you bought the 7200 already, enjoy it and know it's a great camera. Full stop.
To me, however, your choice, if still to be made, is between the 7100 and the 7500, so I disagree with Bikerbrent here. That choice really comes down to how much money you want to spend and what kind of pictures you usually take. If general travel, landscapes, architecture and the like are your thing, the D7100 will be just fine. Great camera, I still use it for most of my shooting. Buy one used, have fun, and spend the money you saved wisely.
If focusing speed matters to you, realize that there is little difference between the 7100, 7200 and 7500. All three of them share the same AF system. Even though the 7200 and 7500 have a slightly faster processor and thus perform marginally better, the 500 beats all of them hands-down, owing to its superior 153-point AF. Where the 7500 kicks butt with both 7100 and 7200 is in low-light conditions, where the different sensor (same as on 500, with larger pixels than 7100/7200) and a number of other improvements really have some merit. So if you often find yourself shooting in poor light conditions, by all means get a 7500, or bite the price bullet and get a 500. If you're into birding, definitely save up until you can afford the 500. You'll love what it gives you - much more than any of the others can.
To me, however, your choice, if still to be made, is between the 7100 and the 7500, so I disagree with Bikerbrent here. That choice really comes down to how much money you want to spend and what kind of pictures you usually take. If general travel, landscapes, architecture and the like are your thing, the D7100 will be just fine. Great camera, I still use it for most of my shooting. Buy one used, have fun, and spend the money you saved wisely.
If focusing speed matters to you, realize that there is little difference between the 7100, 7200 and 7500. All three of them share the same AF system. Even though the 7200 and 7500 have a slightly faster processor and thus perform marginally better, the 500 beats all of them hands-down, owing to its superior 153-point AF. Where the 7500 kicks butt with both 7100 and 7200 is in low-light conditions, where the different sensor (same as on 500, with larger pixels than 7100/7200) and a number of other improvements really have some merit. So if you often find yourself shooting in poor light conditions, by all means get a 7500, or bite the price bullet and get a 500. If you're into birding, definitely save up until you can afford the 500. You'll love what it gives you - much more than any of the others can.
Last edited:
All sounds good yet you have no pics to compare 2 posts is all you have I'd feel better if you had a hundred and at least 10 pics to show
Well, Kevin, not sure that my primary mission in life is to make you feel good. In general, I don't believe in quantity over quality, so if you only take people with gazillions of posts seriously, better count me out.
If you seriously care to learn more about me, though, then take a look at my introduction to the forum and you'll find both, more background info and a link to hundreds of pictures - which I always think speak louder than words.
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
As a previous D7100 owner (now D500/D810 shooter), I've not been a big fan of the D7200 or the D7500 in particular. That said, I don't think it's fair to say the D7200 is simply in-between the D7100 and D500. The AF performance of the D500 is hands down a benefit for that body. While the improvements to the D7200 didn't justify the upgrade money from my wallet, the IQ differences between the D7200 and D500 still make that a much better comparison than introducing the D7500 into the mix. The D7200 provides close performance to the D500 for a significant price delta below the D500, while the D7500 requires the shooter to give up pro features like dual SD cards and the lack of a vertical grip to price compete with the D7200. The D7500 (IMO) really should be in the D5xxx line of bodies because of the feature sacrifices, but isn't solely because of the sensor... but then we're back to incremental differences and not having the 153-point AF that convinced me to upgrade from the D7100. I would pay to upgrade from the D7100 to the D7200, and if I still had the D7100 I would keep it vs go to the D7500 (if spending money was needed).
If buying new, I still think the D7200 vs D500 discussion is the one to have, and the D7100 or D7500 only come into play for the right deal where you can save some good money.
Not at all trying to shoot down your argument, RocketCowboy, but parts of it puzzle me. For starters, you are not the first to point to the single SD slot of the 7500 as a 'non-pro' feature, but I just don't get it. I shoot RAW all the way, as any pro would, too, so a second card slot only makes sense if you shoot with instant backup, which slows the serial shooting speed considerably and is therefore something I would never consider. I back up my cards daily, and that is that. The 500, with its mix of XQD and SD slots, is an odd animal anyway, and I don't expect to see much XQD support across the camera industry given how limited its support by card makers is, so this could well be Nikon's first and last XQD-supporting SLR. (Just FYI, I have a 2000x Lexar SD card in my 500 and get the camera's full shooting performance.) So IMHO, 7100/7200/7500 and 500 are the same in this department except for faster serial shooting speeds, where the 7500 clearly outperforms the 7100/7200.
The vertical grip option is indeed a difference as far as the 7500 is concerned. Whether that bothers you depends on your shooting preferences. I travel a lot, backpack quite a bit, and always carry spare batteries, so a vertical grip is essentially dead weight to me, but we all have different needs.
You refer to an IQ difference between the 7200 and 500 that I am not quite able to point to. What exactly do you have in mind here? ColorFoto, a German magazine that in my view does a much more thorough job in analyzing IQ under tough repeatable lab conditions than any U.S. publication I ever came across, gives the 7200/7500/500 the exact same scores for image quality at ISO 100 and 400, with the 7200 scoring lower at ISO 800+. This matches my own shooting experience: at low ISOs, I am hard pressed to find any IQ difference between my 7100 and my 500, while in poor light the latter does substantially better. The resolution difference between the two is insignificant - it may give the 7100/7200 a marginal edge at very large print sizes, but that difference in my view has no practical relevance whatsoever, and if large prints are what you are after, the 750 or 810 are much better choices anyway.
As far as other features go, the 7500, thanks to having the CPU of the 500, supports a number of features the 500 has but the 7200 does not, for instance Group AF (very valuable), TIFF shooting, ultra high ISOs, XGA-size LiveView, and more. At the same time, it retains, actually even extends, some of the features the 7200 has but the 500 does not, like custom user modes or Scene/Effect modes. The latter are not exactly pro-relevant, but still.
Except for the vertical grip and the price difference (which naturally we need to keep in mind here), where do you see the 7200 having an edge over the 7500?
The vertical grip option is indeed a difference as far as the 7500 is concerned. Whether that bothers you depends on your shooting preferences. I travel a lot, backpack quite a bit, and always carry spare batteries, so a vertical grip is essentially dead weight to me, but we all have different needs.
You refer to an IQ difference between the 7200 and 500 that I am not quite able to point to. What exactly do you have in mind here? ColorFoto, a German magazine that in my view does a much more thorough job in analyzing IQ under tough repeatable lab conditions than any U.S. publication I ever came across, gives the 7200/7500/500 the exact same scores for image quality at ISO 100 and 400, with the 7200 scoring lower at ISO 800+. This matches my own shooting experience: at low ISOs, I am hard pressed to find any IQ difference between my 7100 and my 500, while in poor light the latter does substantially better. The resolution difference between the two is insignificant - it may give the 7100/7200 a marginal edge at very large print sizes, but that difference in my view has no practical relevance whatsoever, and if large prints are what you are after, the 750 or 810 are much better choices anyway.
As far as other features go, the 7500, thanks to having the CPU of the 500, supports a number of features the 500 has but the 7200 does not, for instance Group AF (very valuable), TIFF shooting, ultra high ISOs, XGA-size LiveView, and more. At the same time, it retains, actually even extends, some of the features the 7200 has but the 500 does not, like custom user modes or Scene/Effect modes. The latter are not exactly pro-relevant, but still.
Except for the vertical grip and the price difference (which naturally we need to keep in mind here), where do you see the 7200 having an edge over the 7500?
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
Shooting weddings, the lack of dual storage cards is a no-starter for me. It won't be critical for everyone, and it's great that you have an archive procedure down to prevent data loss. I can't lose part of the wedding due to a card failure. Not when I know there are options to reduce that risk. For my personal projects, it's not as critical, but I can't concede that for the pro-sumer space that the D7x00 has historically been targeted to, that this feature is irrelevant.
Agree as well, the grip is the grip.
The IQ differences between the D7200 and D500 (according to DXOMark) are close enough ... not identical ... but close enough to factor in cost. That's why I stated that the D7200 and D7500 were not enough to get me to upgrade from the D7100 alone, but with the D500's AF and layout to match the D810, that worked for me.
At the end of the day, I upgraded from the D5300 to the D7100 years ago because of the inclusion of more pro features like the battery grip and dual storage cards, in addition to the extra command wheel dial (vs the D5300's single dial) for easier adjustment on the fly. While the D7500 isn't exactly the same as the D5x00 series bodies, it's in between enough that the removal of other pro oriented features keeps me from taking it seriously. Great camera and will get the job done, doesn't have the feature I want/need to find its way into my bag.
I've typically advised that anyone looking to upgrade/buy a new camera, to make a list of the features that are critical to them. When upgrading, it helps to waive off the effects of gear lust, when you narrow down exactly what the new camera will do for you. There may be features on the D7500 that make it a must have body. But I think that's more the exception than the rule, and a photographer could be better spent saving money on the D7500 in favor of the D7200, and spending that extra money on better glass.
Thanks, RocketCowboy. Your wedding photographer argument makes complete sense to me. We agree anyway that what makes a camera great for you is that it matches your set of needs. To me, in light of all the D500 features the 7500 has, it is a much cheaper 500 with (unfortunately) the slower AF system of the 7200.
In any case, I'll stick with my 7100 (for wide-angle and mid-range work in good light) and 500 (for everything else).
In any case, I'll stick with my 7100 (for wide-angle and mid-range work in good light) and 500 (for everything else).
I had this same question for a couple weeks and recently landed on a Nikon refurb D7100 w/ 900 clicks, 90 day warranty. $550 delivered. Looks and acts like new. I love a bargain and am willing to take a chance sometimes.
Spent way too much time reading about the 'banding' issue on the D7100 before realizing that it is a non-issue for me.
Spent way too much time reading about the 'banding' issue on the D7100 before realizing that it is a non-issue for me.
It's been a non-issue for me, too. Had the D7100 for a few years and did not come across this issue even once, though I tend to shoot a fairly diverse portfolio across a wide range of lenses. I guess it was either a fluke in the first place, or Nikon fixed it with an update.
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
It is my opinion that the small price increase for a D7200 vs. the D7100 on an original purchase, the increase high ISO settings, larger buffer and better auto focus, make the D7200 a no brainer. However, if I had a D7100, I would be hard pressed to buy a D7200 unless I had and firm offer to buy my D7100 at a decent price. Try a google search of D7200 Vs. D7100.