The D7000 is the best camera I have owned so far, so I am wondering if I should upgrade to the D7100.
Will the extra megapixals make that much difference?
I would not upgrade to the D7100, its a great camera but most people would notice bigger improvements from upgrading lenses.
What lenses do you currently have?
I love my 50mm 1.8 beautiful Bokeh
I had the 70-200mm 2.8 but all my lenses were stolen last year, fortunately when they were stolen I had my D200 and the 12-24mm with me so I didn't lose those.
I love the 12-24, I HAD to replace the 50mm because I loved it so much, the 70-200i s too much too buy again so I bought the 55-200mm just recently but haven't had time to play with it much.
Am hoping to pick up my all time favorite lens soon though the 85mm 1.4D!
I have the following lenses:
AF-S 300mm F4
AF-S 105mm F2.8 VR
AF-S 18-200mm VR
AF 35mm F2
AF 50mm F1.8I was hoping to get more reach with my AF-S 300mm F4 thru more pixels.
You would certainly get more reach due to the extra MP's. Personally I found that when I upgraded to the 70-200 2.8VRII I was able to crop a hell of a lot more as the IQ had been dramatically increased. I'm glad I purchased the glass before upgrading the body.
Cheers
I've only recently acquired the D7000 and have had limited opportunity to go out and use it. This said it is the best camera I've ever used. Now I need to slowly and selectively expand my lens collection
You can't help but like the images from a 70-200/2.8 VRII but it's a lens you will most likely not like for casual walking around. It is big and heavy. So unless you are tasked to shoot something like an event or its capabilites trumps the burden of hauling it around, a lighter and less expensive alternative of that focal length might be more pragmatic. Of course, YMMV.
Got the D7100 as an upgrade from the 3100. Can't say that I've had any issues at all with no low pass filter.
It's a fantastic camera and the images I'm getting are awesome.
I have a new 70-300 to go with it and a 50mm. Both work great with this camera.
My 3100 is now sitting as my back up camera.
I upgraded directly from the D7000 to the D7100. It was completely worth it. Better image quality, better noise handling, better AF... and I got to sell my D7000 before the price goes off a cliff. Your situation will dictate if it would be worth it for you but I'm happy I made the switch.
I have the D7000 and the D7100. The former is a great camera but the D7100 is better. Wouldn't you expect it to be if it superceeds the other? Nikon knows what it is doing or it would soon be out of business,
What the removal of the low pass filter has given me is incredible detail on images. Beware of salestalk - it depends on what models the salesman is trying to shift and what he has in stock.
The technology you get for your money is absolutely amazing and the extra pixels are of immense value to me in wildlife photography.
Lenses are important, probably more so than a body but you also need the most up to date platform you can afford for them to work on.
Never having handled a D600 I cannot comment on this body but I can vouch for the D7000 and D7100 and if money or a lens upgrade are not a priority then I would, without hesitation, go for a D7100
Coming from a Pentax K-5 I have to say that the K-5 is much more comfortable to hold and operate. It fits like a glove, whereas the Nikon is easier to operate with gloves. But then, who does that anyway? But that's a very important point for me.
I bought a used D7000 to get into the Nikon system as I prefer the AF and lenses. I travel a lot and have the opportunity to check out the latest releases at airports and have to say that the D7100 feels much better in MY hands than the D7000. And it got a proper Auto ISO function!
Especially with bigger lenses I find the D7000 rather uncomfortable. My solution for now: tripod! But got my eye on that comfortable D7100 ......... the other features aren't bad either .....
I upgraded from the D7000 to the D7100 and was blown away by the D7100. Picture quality was very noticable, sharp, detailed, and vibrant. I have no regrets and would never look back.
Has anybody with the Sigma 10-20mm f4.5 had any difficulties with the AF not working on the D7000? I read in N-Photo about a bloke who had to send his lens back to Sigma for them to modify it so it would work with the cameras AF motor. It was a very small fee for them to do it but I don't to be without my favourite glass for a short while.
Has anybody with the Sigma 10-20mm f4.5 had any difficulties with the AF not working on the D7000? I read in N-Photo about a bloke who had to send his lens back to Sigma for them to modify it so it would work with the cameras AF motor. It was a very small fee for them to do it but I don't to be without my favourite glass for a short while.
Good old double post...my apologies.
No but I have the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5, and when I had the d7000 the af worked perfect. I have since used it with my d7100 and AF works well on it too.
I also have both the D7000 and D7100. I shoot a lot of "available light" events indoors. The D7100 is outstanding at low light. I am not afraid to shoot at 3200 ISO. I shoot "in the ring, action shots" at dog shows and the D7100 with the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR and am always confident that I get the shots. The D7000 is good and I keep it as a back-up. I also have a D700 full frame, and I use the D7100 as my got to body. I shoot events, dog shows, and concerts and I have not found the D7100 lacking. Outadarwin's question is should he upgrade to the D7100. I would say as a bottom line, if you are shooting in low or difficult light situations, yes, yes, yes. But if you are shooting where super high ISO isn't crucial, maybe wait. Yes, invest in great glass!