d7100 v d7200 ..?
- Thread starter JH Foto
- Start date
I was faced with the same problem last December.
I was coming from a D3100.
The D7200 has a newer sensor and a bigger buffer. It also has a bigger price.
The D7100 has a capable sensor and a miniscule buffer. If you're shooting RAW it will clog up in a hurry at 6fps.
Prices on the D7100 are falling. I have a policy of always getting last years gear, cameras included. I went with the D7100.
The price difference allowed me to get two used prime lenses. If I'd have bought the D7200 there would have been no money for new glass.
YMMV
I was coming from a D3100.
The D7200 has a newer sensor and a bigger buffer. It also has a bigger price.
The D7100 has a capable sensor and a miniscule buffer. If you're shooting RAW it will clog up in a hurry at 6fps.
Prices on the D7100 are falling. I have a policy of always getting last years gear, cameras included. I went with the D7100.
The price difference allowed me to get two used prime lenses. If I'd have bought the D7200 there would have been no money for new glass.
YMMV
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
We've have a D7100 and a D5300 in my house for some time now so based on that, here's are my thought's.
My girlfriend has shot with a D5300 for long while now and it never ceases to amaze me what she can get out of it. With really good glass, I've often referred to this camera as a "wolf is sheep's clothing". When I say this, I am referring strictly to image quality. The D7100 is also amazing. Going from a 5000 body to a 7000 body, really, is not better image quality, it's about practicality.
The 7100/7200 bodies give you a better build quality (e.g. the magnesium-alloy body and weather sealing) and more cool features you'll get used before you start wondering how you ever lived without them. Things like the top-mounted LCD, dual Command-Wheels, dual-card slots and a built-in focus-motor so you can use less expensive (and often incomparable) D-series primes for instance.
The D7200, to my way of thinking, is an "Apology Camera"; Nikon screwed the pooch by releasing the D7100 with a crippled buffer and if they didn't know it then, they know it now. The D7200 corrects this problem and Nikon tacked on some additional features to sweeten the deal. If you know for a fact you're going to to go with either the 7100 or 7200 I'd say go big or go home and get the D7200. On the other hand, if you can score a super deal or something on a D7100, then that's another matter.
robbins.photo
Senior Member
I guess a lot depends on your individual shooting style and the sort of shooting situations you find yourself in often as to whether or not you'll really benefit from the upgrade.
I upgraded to the 7100 from an older D5200, and believe me I thought it was well worth it. The second command dial on the 7100 gives me the ability to control both the aperture and the shutter speed and adjust both quickly and easily on the fly, and that alone was worth the upgrade to me at least. It made a huge difference being able to quickly and easily control both my aperture settings and my shutter speed without having to take the camera out of shooting position.
On paper you won't see a huge difference between the 5200 and the 7100, but at least from my experience it's a lot of little things that made a big difference. The 7100's viewfinder was much better than the 5200, for example. Just a lot of little factors that combined together to make shooting the 7100 a much more enjoyable experience.
As someone else mentioned the 7100 does have a smaller buffer, so if your shooting a lot of bursts the 7200 might be worth investing in, for me I use cards with a 95 mb/s write speed so the buffer clears much faster, and that's always been good enough for my needs using the 7100.
My recommendation? If you can go take a look at a 7100/7200 at a store and try them out, or even rent one for a few days and see for yourself if it's worth the price of the upgrade.
I upgraded to the 7100 from an older D5200, and believe me I thought it was well worth it. The second command dial on the 7100 gives me the ability to control both the aperture and the shutter speed and adjust both quickly and easily on the fly, and that alone was worth the upgrade to me at least. It made a huge difference being able to quickly and easily control both my aperture settings and my shutter speed without having to take the camera out of shooting position.
On paper you won't see a huge difference between the 5200 and the 7100, but at least from my experience it's a lot of little things that made a big difference. The 7100's viewfinder was much better than the 5200, for example. Just a lot of little factors that combined together to make shooting the 7100 a much more enjoyable experience.
As someone else mentioned the 7100 does have a smaller buffer, so if your shooting a lot of bursts the 7200 might be worth investing in, for me I use cards with a 95 mb/s write speed so the buffer clears much faster, and that's always been good enough for my needs using the 7100.
My recommendation? If you can go take a look at a 7100/7200 at a store and try them out, or even rent one for a few days and see for yourself if it's worth the price of the upgrade.
Just don't get the D7000, that 16MP sensor is old news and many of the features feel dinosaur in comparison. Between the 7100 and the 7200, I'd save my money and go with the 7100 and get myself a sharp Sigma lens. Most of the features are identical unless there's something you REALLY want.
The D5300 is very capable as a camera though and I don't think investing from a D5300 to a D7100 or even a D7200 is worth the investment. You're still within one~two generation gap difference. I feel that three generations of camera = significant improvement worth upgrading.
You'll find more value and image quality from investing in great DX glass. My recommendation:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8
Sigma 50-150mm f/1.8
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary
or (because some people are "native lens loyal")
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G DX
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX,
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G FX
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX, Nikon 55-300mm f/4-5.6 DX, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 FX
Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 FX
That new D500 looks like a worthy successor to your D5300 and is 3 generations ahead.
The D5300 is very capable as a camera though and I don't think investing from a D5300 to a D7100 or even a D7200 is worth the investment. You're still within one~two generation gap difference. I feel that three generations of camera = significant improvement worth upgrading.
You'll find more value and image quality from investing in great DX glass. My recommendation:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8
Sigma 50-150mm f/1.8
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary
or (because some people are "native lens loyal")
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G DX
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX,
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G FX
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DX, Nikon 55-300mm f/4-5.6 DX, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 FX
Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 FX
That new D500 looks like a worthy successor to your D5300 and is 3 generations ahead.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Go with he D7100. Great prices on it now. If you can find a refurbished one it might be worth it even more. Use the money saved and buy some nice glass
I did just what you are wanting to do. I had a D5300 and when the Refurb sale came for the D7100, I bought one. Now I have both. I am not disappointed in the purchase. I like the extra control features that others have mentioned. Both produce about the same quality photos, it is just the convenience of the D7100 that pushes it ahead. I generally keep the 18-55mm lens on the 5300 and the 70-300mm on the 7100. That works for me.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Honestly? I just did a side-by-side-by-side on Nikon's website and here's what I think (it's worth the price of admission).
1. I see absolutely no reason for you to move from a D5300 to a D7100 outside of the ability to use AF glass without a built in AF motor. Everything else is such a small step up, and in some cases (ISO) a step backwards. 51-pt AF system is the only other real gain.
2. The D7200 buys you better ISO performance, a bigger buffer, 1 add'l fps, the better AF system, the use of more glass, 9 frames of auto-bracketing.
If you haven't ever said, "Dang, I really wish this camera had/did ________", with any of the things mentioned in #2 then you're spending money needlessly.
I'm not telling you not to. I'm thinking there may be other things that could push your photography further with your existing body that might be a better way to spend your money. Maybe a couple good primes? Something to stretch you a bit. Otherwise, I personally believe that the D7100 even at a great price is money poorly spent given what you already have.
Do yourself a favor and use Nikon's comparison feature on their website. You'll be amazed at how little is different.
1. I see absolutely no reason for you to move from a D5300 to a D7100 outside of the ability to use AF glass without a built in AF motor. Everything else is such a small step up, and in some cases (ISO) a step backwards. 51-pt AF system is the only other real gain.
2. The D7200 buys you better ISO performance, a bigger buffer, 1 add'l fps, the better AF system, the use of more glass, 9 frames of auto-bracketing.
If you haven't ever said, "Dang, I really wish this camera had/did ________", with any of the things mentioned in #2 then you're spending money needlessly.
I'm not telling you not to. I'm thinking there may be other things that could push your photography further with your existing body that might be a better way to spend your money. Maybe a couple good primes? Something to stretch you a bit. Otherwise, I personally believe that the D7100 even at a great price is money poorly spent given what you already have.
Do yourself a favor and use Nikon's comparison feature on their website. You'll be amazed at how little is different.