D7200 or 100?

NvidiaDan · 14 May 2015 at 10:33

Hey guys, looking at getting one of these cameras as an upgrade from my d90.

For pretty much the same price (possibly less) than the 7200 body I could get the 7100 with a 35mm F1.8 lens with £120 cashback or free battery grip.

Is the 7200 worth the extra?

thelegend · 14 May 2015 at 10:49

Depends on the kind of shooting you do. I've got the 7100 and I love it. The only draw back is the write buffer. It can only hold 6 14bit raws before it slows down. This was the only big change on the 7200, it has a larger buffer. If you don't do a lot of spraying and praying then I wouldn't pay the extra for the 7200. Have a look in my image thread for some examples from the 7100.

Lee

Darren555 · 14 May 2015 at 12:28

This is about the only proper user review I've seen of the D7200 which might give you some insight;

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d7200

Steve M · 14 May 2015 at 12:36

As above. Unless the buffer (don't know why anyone who is a sports shooter/needs to shoot loads of FPS) would be going for a D7100/D7200 anyway) is a problem, get the 7100.

NvidiaDan · 14 May 2015 at 12:40

I shoot mainly aircraft and aviation which can involve some burst shooting, but I find myself shooting in large jpeg instead of raw nowadays anyway due to storage requirements. What's the buffer like on the 7100 for large jpeg?

Steve M · 14 May 2015 at 12:43

Still fills up pretty quickly. Apart from that, the D7100 is an awesome camera for the money, especailly as the D7200 has forced the prices to drop a bit.

D.P. · 14 May 2015 at 15:25

They are both great cameras, the D7200 has a slightly better sensor and focuses a tiny bit better, plus there is the buffer size.

On either camera you will want to drop the sensor down to 12bit mode, 14buit mode is rarely that useful and would only be for extreme recovering of details and tweaking for things like landscape photos where the buffer size is irrelevant. For standard shooting use 12 bit