New Camera - Nikon D7100 vs D610

[Michael Woolford]

I am looking at getting a new camera body and have been looking at the D7100 or the D610. I'm focused on Formula 1 and photography at airshows, with the occasional railway related photographs. I have read several reviews and comparisons of the two and am swaying strongly towards the D7100 for two main reasons. The first being that the D7100 has a DX format sensor and provides a 1.5x crop magnification when using non DX lenses. If I were to go for the D610 which has a full frame FX sensor, I would then lose the extra focal length with the lenses that I have/intend to buy and since most of my photography requires longer focal lengths I feel I would be loosing out. The only alternative would be to use bigger lenses such as a 300mm or 200-400m, both of which run into the £4000 range. I just couldn't afford or justify the cost of such lenses unless I was a professional photographer. A 200-400mm f/4 would be useful but is just way out of the question. I'm currently looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 as options for upgrading my lenses.

 

The second factor leads on from the point of the expense of the lenses I would need if I went for a D610. The cost of the D610 is around £500 more: £1249 compared to £765; is it really worth the extra to go FX given the issues for me?

 

The great thing about buying either at the moment is that Nikon are running a promotion which entitles you to a free battery grip when buying either; a saving of over £200 if you bought it separately which is making me think even more about making a purchase after Christmas. 

 

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has either of these cameras or has used them before. Thanks in advance.

 

Michael

[Revolution Mike]

Are you set on Nikon? The reason I say that is I've always found Canon to have a wider choice of lenses available at different price points giving more choice. Plus I wouldn't discount third party lenses.

 

A crop factor is not really giving you extra "reach" but just limiting the amount of an image that is captured. See: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/crop-factor.htm

 

Generally (though I'm sure there are exceptions) full frame cameras have better image quality.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Michael Woolford]

I have already invested in Nikon lenses and couldn't really see myself selling and losing money to switch. The lab test comparison between the two seems minimal on image quality.

 

Michael

[PhilH]

I have a D7100 and am very pleased with it. However for what you do I would imagine it involves taking a series of shots close together. There is an issue with the D7100 which involves write speeds when continuous shooting ie the thing starts to slow down. This issue is well documented on the internet, I would advise you to research this as it could possibly impact on what you wish to use the camera for

[chaz]

I have a D610. The resolution that this camera delivers, even with ISO1600 set is phenomenal. I use it for wildlife photography - birds with a Nikkor 80-400 and TC1.4 combination and insects with a Micro-Nikkor F2.8 105mm. The bird photos almost invariably need quite drastic cropping - you can't get close enough to the little blighters even with an effective 550mm on the front. The resolution will stand this hard cropping and my results are good. Should you want to you can switch the camera to DX format - this is automatic if you fit a DX lens.

 

Hope that's some help.

[two tone green]

I bought my wife the 7100 plus the Nikkor 18 -300mm zoom lens a year ago and she has had great results from it. It has worked well in many different situations with no real issues.  

 

As for the slow write speed when taking continuous photos, largely solved by using a fast card.

 

But what about the newer 7200, may be worth looking at.

[PhilH]

 

But what about the newer 7200, may be worth looking at.

....which could pave the way for deals to be had on the D7100.

[Michael Woolford]

I have a D610. The resolution that this camera delivers, even with ISO1600 set is phenomenal. I use it for wildlife photography - birds with a Nikkor 80-400 and TC1.4 combination and insects with a Micro-Nikkor F2.8 105mm. The bird photos almost invariably need quite drastic cropping - you can't get close enough to the little blighters even with an effective 550mm on the front. The resolution will stand this hard cropping and my results are good. Should you want to you can switch the camera to DX format - this is automatic if you fit a DX lens.

 

Hope that's some help.

How does the TC perform with the 80-400? I've looked at the compatibility charts and it seems that there are issues with the autofocus working fully, or are you shooting with manual focus?

 

I'm not overly concerned with the issues with the write speed as this can be improved as already mentioned. The one thing that does concern me however, is the issue of dust or oil on the sensor as reported by quite a few. I believe this is largely due to the fact that there is no optical low-pass filter. How regular an occurrence this issue is I do not know, and I would have thought that Nikon would have looked into the issue by now anyway. 

 

The D7200 hasn't been released yet, if that's what it'll even be called, although there is an expectation that there will be a release similar to an improvement on the D7100 in September. I an't exactly wait that long as the British Grand Prix would have been and the air display season would be near enough finished too. Thanks so far.

 

Michael

[Oldddudders]

D7200? News to me - it's true vapourware at present. Nikon is pushing purchasers towards FX rather than DX, and the limited range of DX lenses - unless you want a superzoom, with the all the compromises that must have - makes DX an increasingly difficult choice even with the 1.5x factor. The limited buffer on the D7100 will hold you back in motor sport, where 30-40 shots in a burst are what you need on occasions, especially the first lap. Have you looked at the 300 mm f4 AFS? I've been using one at Le Mans for a decade.

 

I'm just parcelling up my D300s to sell in the UK next week. The D750 arrived today.

[owentherail]

I was looking at a D610 but I'm going for a D750 , it can do Fx and Dx which sounds cool.

[Oldddudders]

I was looking at a D610 but I'm going for a D750 , it can do Fx and Dx which sounds cool.

Yes, but check how many megapixels you get in DX first.

[Michael Woolford]

I think the D750 is too much for me, something similar might be worth considering when I come to upgrade the next time round, unless I can find a good finance option. At around £1000 more than the D7100 it's definitely a big push beyond where I was looking.

 

Michael

[Oldddudders]

I think the D750 is too much for me, something similar might be worth considering when I come to upgrade the next time round, unless I can find a good finance option. At around £1000 more than the D7100 it's definitely a big push beyond where I was looking.

 

Michael

I paid £1300. Admittedly it's arrived via DHL Hong Kong... Check ebay prices.

[Michael Woolford]

I paid £1300. Admittedly it's arrived via DHL Hong Kong... Check ebay prices.

Doesn't that mean you have no dealer guarantee and how has it affected the Nikon warranty?

 

Michael

[Oldddudders]

Ebay seller alleges he warrants it for two years. In almost 12 years of owning multiple DSLRs, I've needed assistance twice. Once - out of warranty - my D2h developed the known meter cell problem, cost me £50. The other, my late wife had an issue in warranty with her D70 - a CF card-slot issue. This is no worse than in the film era - in 1970 my Nikon F needed a tweak to the self-timer after a few months, and in 1974 my F2 Photomic head went increasingly out of whack. The F5 I bought secondhand in 2002 had a meter segment fail - replaced under warranty by the dealer.

 

I am prepared to take the risk, in short. The £ saving up front seems to exceed any price I might pay for after-market repairs.

[Xerces Fobe2]

I am a Nikon however the 610 has had some poor reviews with issues with distortion on soon and Nikon have removed GPS from this range of cameras which has made me hang on to my 510. Maybe like a few other Japanese companies Nikon is on the wrong side of the peak when it comes to camera sales!

 

XF

[chaz]

How does the TC perform with the 80-400? I've looked at the compatibility charts and it seems that there are issues with the autofocus working fully, or are you shooting with manual focus?

 

I'm not overly concerned with the issues with the write speed as this can be improved as already mentioned. The one thing that does concern me however, is the issue of dust or oil on the sensor as reported by quite a few. I believe this is largely due to the fact that there is no optical low-pass filter. How regular an occurrence this issue is I do not know, and I would have thought that Nikon would have looked into the issue by now anyway. 

 

The D7200 hasn't been released yet, if that's what it'll even be called, although there is an expectation that there will be a release similar to an improvement on the D7100 in September. I an't exactly wait that long as the British Grand Prix would have been and the air display season would be near enough finished too. Thanks so far.

 

Michael

How does the TC perform with the 80-400? I've looked at the compatibility charts and it seems that there are issues with the autofocus working fully, or are you shooting with manual focus?

I have had no problems with autofocus with the combination although birds in flight are a challenge for any camera/lens combination, as you might expect.

 

The one thing that does concern me however, is the issue of dust or oil on the sensor as reported by quite a few.

This was a problem with some D600s and Nikon say that a redesigned shutter has solved the problem. I have seen nothing of it. It was said to be always at its worst when the camera was new. My D610 has just gone over the 3500 exposure mark so I think its going to prove trouble free in that respect.

 

hope that's helpful.

[MikeOxon]

I use an older DX Nikon (D300s).  For your range of interests, DX allows a smaller lighter camera with a narrower field of view than FX.   There is no intrinsic magic about making a digital sensor match the old 35mm frame size and I think that the DX format provides a 'sweet spot' between size & weight and image quality. 

 

I use a 300mm f/4 lens, which is a superb performer (see Ken Rockwell's recent review) at a reasonable price and also works very well with a X1.4 converter.  I find it excellent for photographing birds in flight, which is not a million miles from your airshow interests.

 

 

 

.

[Michael Woolford]

Does anyone use a battery grip? If so, I'd like to know how the handling is and what benefits it brings other than the extended shooting without having to swap batteries. I ask because I have just seen a refurbished D7100 in my local camera shop for £600 with less than 400 shutter actuations. Certainly something to consider.

 

Michael

[Oldddudders]

Does anyone use a battery grip? If so, I'd like to know how the handling is and what benefits it brings other than the extended shooting without having to swap batteries. I ask because I have just seen a refurbished D7100 in my local camera shop for £600 with less than 400 shutter actuations. Certainly something to consider.

 

Michael

The professional cameras from Nikon and Canon (D4s/EOS1Dx) come with the grip designed and built-in. It provides a fully functional release button if you are using the camera in vertical format, but does add weight and bulk, which is an issue for some of us. Even using relatively affordable lenses like the 300 f4 AFS, or an f2.8 zoom you are carrying 3 kilos round your neck, which can become tedious on an all-day shoot. I was pleased to replace my D2h with the D300s, which was better in every way except frame rate and weighed a good deal less. Some battery grips actually increase the frame rate, too, if the camera is designed that way. I find a spare battery generally is enough, even if shooting more than 1000 shots in a day, and of course batteries are only getting better, smaller and lighter.

 

That D7100 does look a good buy - if you can live with the frame rate.

[Oldddudders]

I have never heard of problems with the Nikon D610. Its predecessor, the D600, quickly acquired a reputation for throwing oilspots onto the sensor, with distressing effect on the images taken. No-one knows what % of cameras were affected, but it was significant. Nikon took a long time to acknowledge this, and after only a year of sales introduced the almost identical D610 in an effort to put the affair behind them. A class-action lawsuit in the US, plus pressure from China, saw them retreat, and any D600 worldwide that has ongoing problems should now have a new shutter provided free by Nikon, so I read. It does mean secondhand D600s are cheap, and in most other respects this is a very fine 24 MP base-model in the FX range. The new D750 is a little more expensive, and feels a little smaller in the hand, too.

 

D600s are still available new, due to slow sales when the bad news spread, and that has also affected the innocent D610 sales, too.

 

The D300s, despite being 5 years old, is still a current model. It is generally thought that the small buffer in the D7100 is there to protect sales of the D300s, as Nikon's top DX camera. The recent introduction of Canon's 7DMkII, with a 10 fps frame rate, makes Nikon's position in high-end APS-C format DSLRs look a little precarious.

[MikeOxon]

.....................

 

The D300s, despite being 5 years old, is still a current model. It is generally thought that the small buffer in the D7100 is there to protect sales of the D300s, as Nikon's top DX camera. The recent introduction of Canon's 7DMkII, with a 10 fps frame rate, makes Nikon's position in high-end APS-C format DSLRs look a little precarious.

I think you made a lot of very good points in your two latest posts, Ian.  I have stayed with my D300s precisely because of the frame buffer issue.  When I have a moving bird in the finder, I need to keep firing!

 

Weight certainly is an issue that has led me to using a 'bridge' camera (Lumix FZ200) for less demanding shots quite a lot.  Because of its greater depth of field, it is excellent for layout photography.

 

Nikon and Canon are always playing 'leap frog', so I expect Nikon will react to the 7DMkII soon 

 

Mike

[ParkeNd]

I confess to having been a Nikon user since 1974 so my apologies to partisan Canon users whose opinions will differ.

 

Having switched from DX to FX when buying the last new Nikon D700 Calumet had in stock, I have to say that nothing else has tempted me since. The quality of D700 images with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AFS lens are totally beguiling - noise free liquid clarity. The D610 nor the D750 are in any way tempting being based on "amateur" bodies. As such I reckon Nikon has a confused range of current FX bodies to choose from and some lousy quality issues (carbon shutter flecks on D600 and light bar effect on D750) which makes decisions tough.

 

For motor sport or feathered birds in flight then the DX crop factor which gives the same effect as multiplying the focal length of a long lens by 1.6 without dropping the max aperture must be a deciding factor in its advantage.

 

But for D300s and D700 users Nikon seems to have left us with no logical upgrade - so it's good that both are still brilliant camera bodies.

 

For the OP maybe new lenses are a more worthwhile upgrade at the moment.

[Michael Woolford]

I confess to having been a Nikon user since 1974 so my apologies to partisan Canon users whose opinions will differ.

 

Having switched from DX to FX when buying the last new Nikon D700 Calumet had in stock, I have to say that nothing else has tempted me since. The quality of D700 images with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AFS lens are totally beguiling - noise free liquid clarity. The D610 nor the D750 are in any way tempting being based on "amateur" bodies. As such I reckon Nikon has a confused range of current FX bodies to choose from and some lousy quality issues (carbon shutter flecks on D600 and light bar effect on D750) which makes decisions tough.

 

For motor sport or feathered birds in flight then the DX crop factor which gives the same effect as multiplying the focal length of a long lens by 1.6 without dropping the max aperture must be a deciding factor in its advantage.

 

But for D300s and D700 users Nikon seems to have left us with no logical upgrade - so it's good that both are still brilliant camera bodies.

 

For the OP maybe new lenses are a more worthwhile upgrade at the moment.

I opted for a refurbished D7100 in the end, I just couldn't stretch to something like the D610 and for what I do and the price, a DX body was the way to go. I am certainly planning on upgrading my lenses, with a new telephoto in mind to replace my current Nikon 70-300 in the coming months. The Nikon 80-400 and the new Sigma 150-600 being contenders. At nearly £2000 for the Nikon, I may well find myself going for the Sigma but then again I might go for and older model such as the 50-500. Decisions decisions...

[two tone green]

I bought my wife the Sigma 50-500 two weeks ago for her 7100 and she is very happy with it.

 

Not had chance to use it in anger but the results off it I have seen and taken by my wife are very good.