p.1 #1 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
I am considering adding a d7200 to my kit to compliment the nikon 200-500vr which I have just ordered.
My current camera is the d7100 ( which I will hang on to ), just how big a difference is there between the two when it comes down to wildlife photography?
I like to shoot butterflys, dragonflys birds and mammals. Sometimes flowers and fungi.
p.1 #2 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
AF and buffer are wonky on the D7100. Had a couple and couldn't trust 'em.
The D7200 ironed out the wrinkles. I shoot a D500 for DX now, but the D7200's
not goin' anywhere. Great body!
p.1 #3 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
Main difference between the two is the buffer. If you have the money go for the D500, this will be a real step up for AF as well as buffer and a lot of other things.
p.1 #4 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
trenchmonkey wrote:
AF and buffer are wonky on the D7100. Had a couple and couldn't trust 'em.
The D7200 ironed out the wrinkles. I shoot a D500 for DX now, but the D7200's
not goin' anywhere. Great body!
I saw this post and was about to write exactly the same thing
D7200 all the way - unless you can swing the D500.
p.1 #6 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
I was hoping for info on the difference on the low light performance between the two.
is the d7200 quicker/more accurate focusing in good or low light?
how does the high iso performance compare?
just how big a difference in real-world terms?
I dont really need a bigger buffer or higher frame rate for the pics I take but sometimes I wish I had better low light performance.
p.1 #7 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
The D7100 AF sucks. The D7200 hasn't let me down thru ISO12800.
Glean what you may from that (I do this for a living) Steve Perry may have more patience...
p.1 #8 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
evan47 wrote:
I was hoping for info on the difference on the low light performance between the two.
is the d7200 quicker/more accurate focusing in good or low light?
how does the high iso performance compare?
just how big a difference in real-world terms?
I dont really need a bigger buffer or higher frame rate for the pics I take but sometimes I wish I had better low light performance.
You can use dpreview's studio test scene comparison to compare noise performance. For example, here's a link I generated for you comparing the D7100 vs D7200 @ ISO 12,800 for low-light; you can modify the widget to compare other ISOs as well:
p.1 #9 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
I have owned six different copies of the D7100 (long story - don't ask). Out of those, one had great autofocus. Never let me down and I got great wildlife shots, including eagle action. That was the first one, purchased shortly after its introduction. Since then, I had several that were nothing short of worthless for wildlife. I now have the D7200.
p.1 #10 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
Specifically regarding low light AF, the D7200's AF is rated down to -3.0 EV where the D7100 AF is rated to -2.0 EV. Aside from being a better all round AF system, the D7200 will focus better in dim lighting and low contrast situations.
The sensors are similar in low light. They are both Toshiba units, but the revised D7200 sensor is better with regard to DR and high ISO. The type of shooting you do and the amount of post processing you do will likely determine if the difference is significant or negligible.
The D500 is an absolute no-brainer for wildlife photography, and was practically made for the 200-500VR, but if you can't afford that, the D7200 is another easy choice and is IMO appreciably better than the D7100 in enough ways to justify.
p.1 #11 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
Some thoughts from an average user. Have had D7100 for 3 years. It delivers very good results ... when the light was good (like in Namibia). Nice saturated colours, and for static subjects (perching birds) or slow moving ones (rhino, zebra, etc) AF was good and accurate.
My main grip with this body was its low light capabilities. I cannot even use the word high ISO since already at ISO 1600 results were just not likeable. I am no good with PP so that was a major problem for me.
When starting to enter into more action type photography, the second weakness of D7100 emerged: shallow buffer. Even if shooting 12-bit RAW, buffer was just too shallow for any longer lasting action.
After returning from 3rd safari to Africa, I have exchanged it for D7200, and immediately noticed how much better it performs in low light situations; both the results were much more likeable, and even at ISO 6400, if not cropping heavily, results were OK or depending on the scene, even remarkable. Using Capture NX-D removing the noise is easy and effective. As for the buffer, shooting 12-bit RAW I have still to hit the buffer limits.
I have paid extra 500 USD for D7200 over the D7100 and I do not regret this investment one bit.
I know that D500 is even better in AF and buffer dept. but for my present needs and skills, D7200 is an excellent body.
p.1 #12 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
My D7100 AF has been absolutely brilliant---have used it for motorcycle road racing with wonderful, sharp results---but that's my copy---don't know about others...
p.1 #13 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
Well, I cant say I am unhappy with my d7100 but the fine grain noise at lower iso settings was the first thing that I noticed when compared to the d7000..
At times I have wished that the af was a little better in low light and the high iso noise was a little less.
I will mull things over for a while as I am in no rush.
p.1 #14 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
Shooting with the D7100 I had no problems with the autofocus though I was using the 80-400mm and 500mm f/4 with and without teleconverters. The D7200 provided me with a larger buffer which had been a problem with the D7100. The buffer would fill up and then I had to wait 15 seconds for it to clear completely before starting to shoot again.
One way to minimize the buffer problem is to shoot 12-bit RAW lossy instead of 14-bit lossless. This roughly cuts in half the file size.
I sold my D7200 to buy the D500 with its new autofocus system. If the D500 had the same autofocus system as the D7200 (and D3/D4/D300/D800, etc) I would not have bought it.
Go with the D7200 for the larger buffer.
Go with the D500 if you want the best autofocus system for moving subjects
The D500 is a very good camera but also a bit of a disappointment with its lack of GPS, poorly implemented Bluetooth and WiFi, lack of internal flash and commander function, and having two different types of card slots. It's having a different controls layout from the D810 is also annoying as I find it no easier to switch between the D810 and the D500 than I did with the D810 and D7200.
p.1 #15 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
I'm surprised to see the complaints about the D7100 AF. Can any of you be more specific? I pre-ordered mine and have had no problem with it but I don't shoot bursts to run into the buffer problem and use single point AF.
p.1 #16 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
I used the D7100 for shooting birds in flight for years and had great success with it. The camera I had before the 7100 was a film camera with no AF which I used for BIF. (yes - cameras used to have no AF) So the D7100 was a huge leap for me. But I often maxed out the buffer which means the camera stopped working and I lost shots. So I had to time my bursts. I now have the D500 and that problem is gone. The D500 is the perfect wildlife shooters camera. Could I get by with a 7200? Sure, but now that I've experienced the D500, it would be painful.
p.1 #17 · d7100 vs d7200, how big a difference for wildlife photography?
Keiththom wrote:
I used the D7100 for shooting birds in flight for years and had great success with it. The camera I had before the 7100 was a film camera with no AF which I used for BIF. (yes - cameras used to have no AF) So the D7100 was a huge leap for me. But I often maxed out the buffer which means the camera stopped working and I lost shots. So I had to time my bursts. I now have the D500 and that problem is gone. The D500 is the perfect wildlife shooters camera. Could I get by with a 7200? Sure, but now that I've experienced the D500, it would be painful. ...Show more →
You must pre-date me and I learned on a FM2 while it was a current model.
The D7100 AF sucks. The D7200 hasn't let me down thru ISO12800.