D7000 vs D7100

I'm sorry for posting a thread so similar to many on here, but I wanted the discussion tailored to my specific needs.

I bought a black friday deal on Amazon.com for the D7000 and a 18-140mm VR lens, for $800.00. I also bought the D7100, and I need to choose which one to keep and which one to return. I could also possibly break apart the D7100 / 18-140mm VR lens bundle and sell them separately, hopefully for profit.

Is the higher HD video frame rate on the D7100 significantly more than the D7000? I don't know much about HD video, so I don't know what the higher frame rate does. I just want good video.
Which camera will do better for night photography, getting better colors in the dark?
Which camera has better HDR bracketing?
​Does the 24MP mean anything for an amateur photographer who takes great pictures, but can't afford a top quality lens?

I have the following lenses. Are any of them good enough to notice the difference between the D7000 and the D7100?

• Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD
• Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX
• Tamron AF 60mm f/2.0 SP DI II LD IF 1:1
• Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD
• Nikon NIKKOR ED 80-200mm f/2.8 AF (from the 1990s)
• Brand new, unused, Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX

I am willing to part with most of these lenses, if I can trade them in at next to no cost, for a top quality lens worthy of the D7100. I do however, have to keep the Nikkor ED 80-200mm f2.8, as that was inherited.

Haven't the foggiest, old bean! Let's kick back and let someone who knows what they're on about chip in. Have you looked online for comparison charts, though? When I moved from my D3100 to my D7100 a few months ago I found a site that had a side-by-side comparison of features - very useful.

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.

I'd say the main difference is about 100. Get it? haha. If you give Tiger woods a beginner set of clubs, and someone else a 1,000$ set of clubs... who do you think will win? Sometimes it's not alls bout the money you spend, but how you use it. I've found people on here taking amazing pictures with the 3100 and a kit lens, much better than I could probably do at times with a d3x and a 70-200. Pick what you like, and feels good, and the lenses you think you'll use, and have at it.

I'd been out of photography for many years and recently retired, so I decided to buy myself a nice dslr. I initalliy bought the d7000 with a kit lens, but within a few days stumbled upon a really great deal on a d7100, so I returned the d7000 and got the d7100. I also bought a couple of used lenses.

One point is I'm not a person who has to have the latest tek and pay whatever to have it. I tend to wait a long time, and buy technology on the downside of the price curve because by then the market has plenty of product on the shelf, plus the manufactures typically have worked out the bugs.

In this case, however, Consumer Reports had the d7100 as it No. 1 pick (shows what a novice I am - LOL), so appart from the mega pixels difference the d7100 had stereo mic sound recording, headphone output and the ability to capture your own custom white balance. There are a few other bells and whistles that separated the d7000 vs the d7100 and helped justify the decision. The main thing for me was to buy the newer tek rather than see it outdated at the time of purchase. Now I know that isn't strictly applicable in photography.

The learning curve kind of surprised me. My last camera was a Minolta 35mm SLR with a built-in light meter, which I used full manual - no program mode. I did my own developing when I could barrow a lab. But, it was like going from a row boat to a power boat in a day. The key is the extra bells and whistles are less important than understand light, lenses, ISO, white balance, composition, etc.

Another aspect, is photography is so much more today - post processing software is a major component which really wasn't a deciding factor when I bought the d7100 but it would be now - the choice of the camera body, although somewhat important, is just a piece of a much larger puzzle.

Although I'm very happy with my d7100, in retrospect, if I had to do it over again I likely would have stayed with the d7000 and the kit lens. When I bought the d7000 I also got a AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR, and combined with the kit lens had a nice range and produced great images - certainly good enough for my skill level.

I think you have to assess your knowledge and skill level, and depending on where you're at, the d7000 is very viable choice. However, if your more advanced and want the current Nikon DX cutting edge, and it sounds like money isn't the issue, then stay with the d7100.

FWIW

Stay with the D7100...Better resolving,sharper images,and better iso..And because of the higher MP, the lens you put in front of it are sharper per mp..It is really a no-brainer..Good luck with your decision..

I would stick with the D7100 if for nothing else that it has the superior Autofocusing system.
I just got a D7100 two days ago and its a huge improvement over the D5100.
I should have got the D7100 to begin with but now I have two camera bodies, which I guess isn't such a bad thing either.