To D7100 or not D7100

To D7100 or not to D7100

I`m looking for some opinions please on my next purchase.
Quick background: I bought my first DSLR in April 2013 - a D3200. Bought the entry level model as I wasnt sure whether photography was going to be something I would be interested in in the long run.
Since then I have joined a local camera group and have really fallen in love with photography and would now consider it my main pass time.

I have mostly been shooting landscapes as it is the groups main interest and I fell in to it with them, but I do still want to explore other avenues and see what else suits me. Landscape photography for sure though will always be one of, if not my main interest for the foreseeable future as I really love the whole process.

I have spent more money since buying the camera in April, on lenses, filters, tripod, bags, flash, triggers etc. Ive come to the point already where I have been thinking of upgrading the body to the D7100. Just want a better body with more functions and options, that are also ready to hand rather than menu driven and a better more rugged body. It will probably be my last "major" investment in my hobby for quite a while and I sort of had my mind made up on the body until I spoke to a few of the camera group, who while not advising against it, came up with some other suggestions that have been doubting my decision slightly.

First of all it was suggested that I should think about holding off, saving more and going full frame, especially with Landscape as a subject in mind(although the majority of them are shooting with cropped sensors ). This isnt really an option for me financially and I cant see it being a route I would even consider going down in the next 2 or 3 years purely down to financial circumstances.

They also suggested in investing the money into glass, which could be a consideration. The lenses I have at the moment are:
Sigma 10 -20 F4-5.6. Only bought this lens a few weeks ago and its the lens that is mostly on my body, shooting the landscapes. Quite happy with it so far.
Nikkor 18-55 kit lens. This will be gone soon enough as I am going to sell it with the D3200 body(if I buy the D7100)
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f1.8G lens - love this lens and use it mostly when the Sigma isnt on.

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f4.5-5.6G IF-ED - Long reach lens obviously and use this fr any wildlife stuff I dable in.

So I`m pretty happy with my lenses overall. The camera body over here is approx €1000 after cash back - which is around $1350 US so its a fair investment for me. As said its probably the last time I will spend this amount of money in one go so I want to make sure I am doing the right thing for me and would really appreciate some opinions on here.

As valid as the opinions of my camera group are, and they are all more experienced shooters than me, they are all Canon shooters, so they arent aware of what the Nikon lens options are or really familiar with the lenses that I currently own, so its more a generic suggestion than one based on an in depth knowledge of my gear.

So basically I`m probably looking to be talked into buying the D7100 here.
Seriously though and even though its a personal thing, I`d appreciate any opinions here on whether to buy the body or invest the money elsewhere be it glass or whatever.

Re: To D7100 or not to D7100

I've been considering D7100 for a few months and I ended up with buying... D7000 (I already own a D5100 which I don't wanna sell). Why I gave up on D7100? Two reasons: 1. the only real difference (as it seems to me) is that famous lack of a moire filter. But I looked at many photo samples and I realized it's a mere marketing trick (when it comes to TAKING PHOTOS, not just pixel peeping). Second reason is, of course, the price. SO, my first advice would be: buy yourself a D7000 - I bought mine for 630 Euros, few days ago. And, consequently, you would not need to sell your D3200 - it's a good camera and it might be useful as a "secondary" or "backup", especially if you get involved in some serious photography work one day...

Last year I upgraded to the D7100 from the D3100, for me it was a good move, I really like this camera, my main interests are macro, wildlife and landscape.

Looking at your lenses, the only FF lens you have is the 70-300. So you need to figure in the cost of new lenses as well as a FX body, it will be a lot more costly than going to a D7100.
If money was no object, I would say to go to a FF body, as I think for landscape that would be the best option.
But the D7100 is no slouch, coupled with good glass, it is capable of producing fantastic images. How much better a FX camera would be, I don't know, but I think it would be a small increase for a large increase in cost.
The trouble is, you will always wonder if your photos would be better if you had a DXXX camera (I know I always do )

Only you can decide what you will buy, but I will say I am happy with my D7100 for what I am doing.

Hello. For lanscape, or for any situation in good light, I believe the 3200 will serve your interests perfectly. Your money would certainly be of more value if you'd invest it in a better lens. If you think about going a different path, lets say portraiture or events, the 7100 is a (much) more capable camera in low light...

As a D800 owner, let me first say that I strongly disagree with @DragonDL's assessment of the removal of the anti-aliasing filter as a "marketing gimmick". Will most photographers notice a difference? Probably not, because they don't own the glass or take the types of photos where it can (lots of very small details), and will make a difference. Should you buy a camera just for that reason? 95% of people shouldn't. But having also been a D7000 owner I can come up with other reasons as to why the D7100 is a better camera, and the right choice for many, with a munch improved sensor being the primary reason, particularly if you shoot at anything over ISO 800, which is where I started seeing more noise than I cared for with the D7000 (great camera at D800 and below).

For you? You are the person that I point to every time someone asks whether or not a D7100 is the right choice as a first DSLR. My take is that while the D3200 is easy to learn, after 9 months most people find it either too little, have given up photography or are grumbling to themselves as they shoot away knowing they should have bought something else but have to be content with what they have. My reasoning is that if you can afford to buy the more complete camera, you have something to serve you for years, and if you decide you don't like photography, you can usually get 70-80% of your money back selling it used with a low shutter count.

As for recommendations, the D3200 isn't all that old, the sensor is more than decent, and unless the camera is showing shortcomings in what you are shooting (i.e. it won't let you do what you want to do, and do a lot - like image bracketing for HDR) then you might be better served in getting some glass first, with a nod towards where you may want to go in the future. The lack if anti-aliasing filter will not likely make a difference in IQ with the glass you currently have, but certainly will with better stuff. The Sigma 10-20mm is likely the only one that will show the difference. If you do buy glass and have any inkling that you might go FX down the road, invest now in glass that will work on it. Otherwise, lenses like the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Macro (both DX lenses) will give you a boost in quality and light (think nighttime landscapes and night painting) and will serve you well on a D7100 or whatever might replace it or the D300s when you're ready, and combined with the 10-20mm you have the range of focal lengths you'd want for landscapes on a DX sensor.

Given what you have, a relatively new camera, do yourself a huge favor and, if you decide to upgrade the body, don't replace it with older technology. The D7000 was a fine camera, but it's not really an upgrade for you as it advances some things and steps back with others. Spend the money wisely, and save a little longer if you can't quite afford it. With another set of lenses I might point you towards a D600 refurb, but it makes no sense at the moment and by the time you have the glass there will be other choices. If you feel you really want a more complete body first then get the D7100 and don't look back. Nothing wrong with shooting DX for landscapes as there are some great lenses made for it (see above). Otherwise, if the D3200 is only limiting you in your head and heart and not in the results it's giving you, get some glass to inspire you and keep shooting until you need and not just want a new body.

BackdoorHippie said:

if the D3200 is only limiting you in your head and heart and not in the results it's giving you, get some glass to inspire you and keep shooting until you need and not just want a new body.

Click to expand...

This is to underline and I would say if the DXXXX is only....

BackdoorHippie said:

As for recommendations, the D3200 isn't all that old, the sensor is more than decent, and unless the camera is showing shortcomings in what you are shooting (i.e. it won't let you do what you want to do, and do a lot - like image bracketing for HDR) then you might be better served in getting some glass first, with a nod towards where you may want to go in the future. The lack if anti-aliasing filter will not likely make a difference in IQ with the glass you currently have, but certainly will with better stuff. The Sigma 10-20mm is likely the only one that will show the difference. If you do buy glass and have any inkling that you might go FX down the road, invest now in glass that will work on it. Otherwise, lenses like the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Macro (both DX lenses) will give you a boost in quality and light (think nighttime landscapes and night painting) and will serve you well on a D7100 or whatever might replace it or the D300s when you're ready, and combined with the 10-20mm you have the range of focal lengths you'd want for landscapes on a DX sensor.

Click to expand...

Firstly thanks for all the replies. Much appreciated.
Just on the above, the 10-20 is really my main lens at the moment and for the foreseeable future so that is in the plus side for reasons to upgrade to the D7100. Also I will sell my D3200 and kit lens if I do go for the D7100 body(my only choice if upgrading the body) and the funds from the sale will be put towards some glass to replace roughly the range of the kit lens.

BackdoorHippie said:

Otherwise, if the D3200 is only limiting you in your head and heart and not in the results it's giving you, get some glass to inspire you and keep shooting until you need and not just want a new body.

Click to expand...

Id be lying if I said there wasnt an element of this in my thinking but it is by no means the main reason. I do want the extra features on the D7100 to expand my knowledge and to broaden my range of shooting options and subjects. Bracketing is something I would like to try for sure. Our camera group are now renting a venue every couple of months for "workshop" type nights, themed around different aspects of using flash, still life etc.

At this stage the D3200 feels like a bit of a toy in my hand. Although I am early into my photography "journey" I do feel as if i know the camera inside out and do hunger for more substantial body, less menu driven with more shooting options. the bigger dynamic range on the D7100 also has me lusting. I think I just feel ready for a camera with a more professional style set up on it(a bit cliched I know).
I really had my mind made up before the meeting last night. I`d researched a lot, watched tons of youtube videos, priced the body up etc.

The Sigma 10-20 is a keeper for me for landscapes and I`m not sure if there is anything much better I could get for a DX with that wide a field of view. I had looked at the Tokina 11-16 which may have been a slightly better option but I couldnt justify the price difference for the faster Tokina, especially when the lens would be used around F11 or so.

I could invest €1000 in new glass now but at the back of my mind I would always be wondering about the likes of the D7100 and the options it may open up to me. I know it sounds like I`m talking myself into buying the body but I do feel it is most likely the right option for me. While I have stated that Landscape will be my main use, I am so early into my photography that its the only field that I`m somewhat knowledgable in so far. I do love it and it will always be a big factor in my photography, but I will be trying out other fields and hope to find others that will be a real interest to me going forward.

If you sell the kit lens with the D3200 think about grabbing a nice zoom to get you from 20mm to the 70mm of your longer lens. The 35mm is a stop gap on the way, but there are times when you'll want more. A good 24-70mm f/2,8 would do you. For the money I like the Sigma. They can be had around $600-650 used but minty

I know exactly how you feel. I had a 3100 for about one year and a half and I "downgraded" to a D90 (because I couldn't afford the 7100) for many of the reasons you mention... If you can (afford it), just go for it and don't even think if it's the right thing to do. It is!!!

Re: To D7100 or not to D7100

adox66 said:

So basically I`m probably looking to be talked into buying the D7100 here.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll try....

I don't see anything wrong with buying the d7100. You did your homework. You don't absolutely NEED it, but you know what it does and you want it and it sounds like you will learn it and enjoy having the more advanced tools at your finger tips. Get it. I just got a d7100 and I already had a d7000. I did not need it and I did not expect any magic. I knew it would be quite similar to my d7000. I just wanted it. I am a tool and gadget guy. Even though my creative photography skills are not there, I enjoy learning and using the hardware, for me, that is half of the fun. I wasn't feeling full frame and I felt slightly guilty about not going that way. A d600 would give me a full frame sensor (and make me unhappy with some of my current lenses), and in the end, I felt the d7100 gave me more 'gadgets' for the tool guy in me. I also wanted two cameras. My old d3100 now feels strange to me and I end up never using it anymore. I am much more comfortable now picking up either d7x00. So while the smart money decision is to not get the d7100, sometimes you need to go with what makes you happy. For some people, having a fancier tool to work with can be inspiring. If this is your passion, you will find the means to eventually get any glass you need as well. Don't force yourself into an either/or decision.

I bought a D5100 early last year. It's a great camera but as soon as I see a can't pass up deal on a D7100 I'm going to go for it. For me, two reasons.......I've mentioned it in other topics......because of it's advantage in low light first of all. I've found myself taking more pictures in low light than anything else. If I only took pictures in good light or where I could use a flash the D5100 is great. Even in low light I like many of the pictures it's taken but..........

Also, I bought my D5100 refurbished so I can still get a decent portion of what I paid for it back right now and not be out much at all.

I've been easily convinced that the FF camera's are superior but for what I use one for I've not been able to justify the extra money.

BackdoorHippie said:

If you sell the kit lens with the D3200 think about grabbing a nice zoom to get you from 20mm to the 70mm of your longer lens. The 35mm is a stop gap on the way, but there are times when you'll want more. A good 24-70mm f/2,8 would do you. For the money I like the Sigma. They can be had around $600-650 used but minty

Click to expand...

Is that the newer model with the HSM? Retails for around $900 and is and FX lens?

adox66 said:

Is that the newer model with the HSM? Retails for around $900 and is and FX lens?

Click to expand...

Don't know about "newer" but it's current, and yes, it's full frame. It rated very high on the DxOMark reviews with the D800, just below the 24-70mm f/2.8.

I bought mine about 18 months ago, just prior to getting a D600 where the deal they had included the 24-85mm lens for the price of the body alone, so I started using that for the extra reach and have since upgraded to the 24-120mm f/4 just because with the D600 I'm getting at least one stop better noise, so I can live without the f/2.8 when I'm getting 50mm extra reach. I've had it for sale for a while but haven't really promoted the listing. If you are in any way interested PM me.

BackdoorHippie said:

Don't know about "newer" but it's current, and yes, it's full frame. It rated very high on the DxOMark reviews with the D800, just below the 24-70mm f/2.8.

I bought mine about 18 months ago, just prior to getting a D600 where the deal they had included the 24-85mm lens for the price of the body alone, so I started using that for the extra reach and have since upgraded to the 24-120mm f/4 just because with the D600 I'm getting at least one stop better noise, so I can live without the f/2.8 when I'm getting 50mm extra reach. I've had it for sale for a while but haven't really promoted the listing. If you are in any way interested PM me.

Click to expand...

Cheers Jake.

Would love to make you an offer but I`m on the other side of the Atlantic!

Dublin? Hmmm. Buy me a plane ticket and a pint and I might just hand deliver it for free.

Jdi!

I can tell you this, if you can afford a 7100, go for it, have fun, it will make you feel like a million bucks, AND that you can take great landscaping photos. I have a Sigma 10-20 too, and use it mainly for close up landscape shots of full front buildings etc., the combo works good. That along with a Sigma 18-250 and a Tamron 18-270, I am happy as a clam.

BackdoorHippie said:

Dublin? Hmmm. Buy me a plane ticket and a pint and I might just hand deliver it for free.

Click to expand...

I was there a few months ago. I always have difficulty leaving! Hotel California in a good way.

Removing the AA filter is not a gimmick..It will be the new Norm moving forward..No one has mentioned that the D7100 is weather sealed and will have better dynamic range for your landscape shooting..Without the filter you should see better details in the shadow areas...Do it man, you wont be disappointed..