camera... Nikon D7100 or D7200?

[VJ]

Hello,

In the market for a new camera, to replace my Nikon D100 - which served me well for 13 years (still going, but battery is near dead).

I was thinking of the latest Nikon D7200, but then I noticed the promotions on the D7100 (the previous model), which put it at about 70% of the price of the D7200...
Both have the same number of mega pixels, most features are the same. From what I gather, the difference is that the 7200 has better low light AF and has a low-light black and white mode. It also has bigger buffer and can record 1080p60fps (older model can just do 25fps). New model has wifi, but only to communicate with tablets and phones (transfer of photos, remote camera control).

I'm not sure I would miss most of those features, the most important difference would be the low-light AF... but is it worth it...?
I know in the end it is a choice I will have to make... but I'm just not sure the added features add that much. I feel I'd better get some fast memory cards, etc.

(I'm not ready to go to full frame yet: I have a very good DX lens, which I like to keep longer. And I think - for me - the added benefits of FX don't weigh up to the cost. I also don't want to go lower, e.g. D5x00, as they don't supply autofocus for non AFS lenses.)

Any thoughts?

Jörg

[UtwigMU]

Check out Ken Rockwell.

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7200.htm

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7100.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/is-it-worth-it.htm

He thinks it's not worth upgrading from d7100 to d7200

Here is dpreview comparsion

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d7100&products=nikon_d7200

From what you wrote if price difference is significant (you could also check if you can buy one used - like from a friend you trust), then go for 7100 IMO.

Low light AF is only useful if you're going to snap pictures of people in low light like at bars or parties. For taking pictures of static objects it doesn't matter. The stuff that would matter to me (ISO, FPS) is essentially the same.

[VJ]

He thinks it's not worth upgrading from d7100 to d7200

No, that is obvious; they are too similar.

I have one AFS (17-55 f/2.8) lens, which is a superb DX lens, one AF (24-85 f/2.8-4), and one flash (SB-800). The DX lens (and price) tell me to stick with DX, the AF lens tells me to have a body that has the screw for the AF (so this rules out the D5xxx series). This leaves the D7100 or the D7200.
I come from a D100, so either would be a terrific upgrade.

From what you wrote if price difference is significant (you could also check if you can buy one used - like from a friend you trust), then go for 7100 IMO.

Low light AF is only useful if you're going to snap pictures of people in low light like at bars or parties. For taking pictures of static objects it doesn't matter. The stuff that would matter to me (ISO, FPS) is essentially the same.

The price difference is: 3400 PLN for the D7100 vs. 4200 PLN for the D7200. But there currently is a cashback promotion on the D7100, which puts it at 3000 PLN; this makes it basically 75% difference. More than I anticipated. I know the low light AF performance of my D100, and that one wasn't too bad...

[UtwigMU]

Bodies (sensors, image processors) are constrained by Moore's law. And unlike 1990's or 2000's in 2010's Moore's law isn't scaling as fast. On German ebay used d7100's go for about 650 EUR, so 740 is a good price for a new one. Even better would be to get one used from a friend / trusted person who takes care of things for 500.

I was offered D5100 for 300 EUR and this is likely direction I'll take.

Your lens cover nearly same zoom area and you could sell the AF one, get another one and D5xxx for about the price of D7100. On the other hand D7xxx have more manual controls which is a very good thing.

[VJ]

The prices in EUR are around 720 (D7100), 1040 (D7200).

I expected some features to be added to the D7200, features that are present in other cameras in the Nikon range: 1080p recording (without the 1.3 crop), perhaps even 4K recording, bigger difference in iso sensitivity, flash sync connector. The wifi implementation have been better: just to connect to a phone/tablet is a bit limiting, considering that a connection to a home network would be useful for uploading.
I've also read that the top LCD on the D7200 contains far less information than that of the D7100, and people on NikonRumors are criticizing it: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/03/31/ni...coverage.aspx/

I was holding out for something that sets D7200 apart, but it seems that they have hit a limit with their current DX range. To be honest, so many years after the D300s, I expected more, but I suspect they want to kill off the DX range in time. Just a shame the Nikon 1 series does not use DX but a smaller sensor.

Selling the AF lens is an option, but the market for such a lens it small: it is AF lens is small while most people need AFS lenses, and while it is a good lens, it is not going to attract big prices. The ranges are similar, but I prefer to keep it for when I make the change to FX. Now it is too early for that, but I expect the body after the D7100 will be FX.
Another option of course could be to sell the 17-55 lens, and get a D610... I didn't think of that option earlier...

Getting a second hand 7100 is difficult: I don't know anyone who wants to sell one, and why would they?

[UtwigMU]

Wifi is useful if you're for example social media manager, covering events. You can only upload to instagram which is the hippest thing now among wannabe hipsters from Android or iOS. Now you don't want to be taking the pictures with your phone though and maybe don't want to apply hipster instagram film wannabe filters. Because even a real camera with real lens worth 20x less than phone will take much better pics.

So if your camera can upload pics to your phone instantly it saves a lot of time in getting pics from events to social media in nearly real time. Without wifi, you need to swap out cards maybe even with PC in the middle, if you want to upload to Instagram.

WiFi > take pic with DSLR > upload to phone, post on instagram
No WiFi > take pic with DSLR > swap card > put card in PC > connect phone with USB > upload to instagram via phone

[VJ]

Wifi is useful if you're for example social media manager, covering events. You can only upload to instagram which is the hippest thing now among wannabe hipsters from Android or iOS. Now you don't want to be taking the pictures with your phone though and maybe don't want to apply hipster instagram film wannabe filters. Because even a real camera with real lens worth 20x less than phone will take much better pics.

Fully true... But then it is stupid that the wifi function is not further extended to allow uploading to a NAS or so. Even though slower than USB, it may be useful (come home, it starts uploading to the NAS). The separate wifi modules that Nikon sells support that, but the built-in wifi function does not. Seems a bit a strange decision to me...

WiFi > take pic with DSLR > upload to phone, post on instagram
No WiFi > take pic with DSLR > swap card > put card in PC > connect phone with USB > upload to instagram via phone

Or get an EyeFI card... You lack remote control of the camera via wifi, but gain other functionality.

[UtwigMU]

Or get an EyeFI card... You lack remote control of the camera via wifi, but gain other functionality.

Nah, I bring laptop to processing lab and put CD with scans of film that has been developed in it and then upload.

Actually now I covet FM / FM2 / FM3a or maybe a Leica M3.

[Wulfman]

I'll make a prediction: either camera will be a vast improvement over the old one, including the low light focusing ability. If you were already happy with the one before, I assume you'll be very happy with either of the new ones. I'd put the 300 euros difference away, and think about upgrading in 8 years time instead of 10.

All the best,
W

[VJ]

I'll make a prediction: either camera will be a vast improvement over the old one, including the low light focusing ability. If you were already happy with the one before, I assume you'll be very happy with either of the new ones. I'd put the 300 euros difference away, and think about upgrading in 8 years time instead of 10.

Yes, I'm going that way...
I anticipated the price difference between the D7200 and the D7100 to be less (difference increased by the cashback offer), and the technical difference to be more.

I will try to sell the D100, I saw surprising offers for second hand ones (even more than 100 euro). Its battery is near dead (and incompatible with the D7x00 battery), but otherwise it is in mint condition. I'll check in the NPS center here.

[Wulfman]

shouldn't a new battery cost about 8 euros or thereabouts?

[VJ]

The unknown brand ones are, more known brands start at 25 EUR, originals are even more.
But if I can get a nice price for the body, why bother? On the other hand, if I could not get a nice price for it, I might as well get a battery to have a working backup camera (e.g. to use in bad conditions such as heavy rain - my D100 already survived such ordeals (-30°, heavy snow).

[VJ]

The D7100 has been ordered! I should have it tomorrow.

I already got a 32 GB memory card (promotion, 10 euros - 15 years ago I bought a 32 MB memory card for 200 $ - how times change) and will get a second battery. As there is no price difference between SD or microSD, I got a microSD card with adapter: it will fit in a phone or tablet later, or even now to review things.
I'm still wondering of getting a vertical grip. On one hand, I like the bigger feel of the camera and the fact that it can take the second battery, but I'm not sure it is that necessary. Of course, a non-Nikon grip can be found for as little as 40 euro, so perhaps it may be fun to try. I also started reading manuals, not only of the camera but also of my flash unit (SB-800), which I would finally be able to use optimally. I would love to be able get better at flash photography, as it is quite useful for indoor occasions. But it is difficult to make it look as if no flash was used.

In addition, I've found quite cheap batteries for the D100, so I may really just opt to get a battery for it, and use it in bad conditions (e.g. a -30° winter here; which is well below the recommended operating range of the D7100 and is not good for batteries and buttons).

[UtwigMU]

unless you use fill in flash when shooting into the sun on camera flash sucks. Better to use high ISO which this camera will do nicely.

For indoors you want off camera flash or bouncing it of ceilings, walls. You may also want softboxes, stands.

Head on to strobist and do lightning 101. you may just have the equipment to do it. This is the first thing I'd do if I got DSLR.

Screw handgrip and other bullshit, get another flash and control unit.

[VJ]

I got the SB-800 as I was not satisfied with the internal flash. The D100 did not really let me use it off camera (I did not have a PC sync adapter), apart from a simple slave functionality. I'm more interested in getting nice interior shots, but not in studio environment. Better ISO performance would be helpfull, but with a flash you can do so many nice things. Thanks for the link, it looks interesting!