D5100 or D7000 or Wait « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

D5100 or D7000 or Wait

(42 posts) (21 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 12

bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

NikoDoby said:
I have several older Nikon lenses. The lack of an AF motor doesn't bother me one bit. I miss the aperture ring waaaay more then the focus motor

+1 (a million times)!!!! ;)

NikoDoby said:
I think the D5100 is a worthy "upgrade/back-up" for the price. I won't be surprised if the "same" D7000 sensor from the D5100 ranks higher on the DXO scale either.

Yes about the 5100 being a worthy "upgrade/back-up" for the price too.

BUT...

I nearly missed that remark about DXO? Like it Niko... Like it. HAHAHAHAHA :)

Posted 2 years ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

The title of this thread is D5100 or D7000 or WAIT. It seems like everyone is choosing between the 5100 and the 7000. I have the D7000 and it is great. But I would choose the third option: wait. Rumors seem quite solid that a few months of waiting will produce more options. The D4 is supposed to be out on a month or so and the D800 out this summer. So it depends upon how much time one has to wait but the D4 is almost certain to offer significantly improved additional features and the D800 is almost certain to use either the D4 sensor or the D3s sensor or the D3x sensor. Yes, we are probably talking at least about $3,000 and that may be a deal killer for the original poster, but unless there is an emergency and unless $3,000 is a deal-breaker, I would wait to see what Nikon announces over the next few months.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

donaldejose said:
Yes, we are probably talking at least about $3,000 and that may be a deal killer for the original poster, but unless there is an emergency and unless $3,000 is a deal-breaker, I would wait to see what Nikon announces over the next few months.

Would you care to contribute towards my "Go FX on digital" fund? ;)

Only got about $5k to raise, as one always needs some new glass and a spare battery...

Posted 2 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

bjrichus said:
Would you care to contribute towards my "Go FX on digital" fund? ;)

Only got about $5k to raise, as one always needs some new glass and a spare battery...

lovely, well said.

people speak about waiting on D800 or D4, lot of folks have lots of money it seems.

Look at the price of a D700, wow, I am trying to justify a used 300 2.8 and can't, but everyone is saying, wait for the D4 or 800.

So lets say the D4 is 6K and after 3 year when the D5 comes out you are going to have to take a 40-50% hit on the price because the new D9000 will be very close to it and no one will spend that much money on a used 3-4 year old camera.

Pros who work with the news or such can afford these cameras and I think they are targeted at those working folks, but us "poor" amatures can just dream about them and make the best out of our D5100, D7000.

I personally prefer to spend the money on better glass, because as you know, the glass will still be with me when your D800 and D4 is put to bed.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I tend to believe that people compare like price points with given abilities of camera systems. People have already complained about price of the D5100 (even though priced less than the D5000 when released-MSRP).

Anyone who is seriously looking at a D5100, is NOT waiting to see what a D400/D800/D4 looks like to purchase one. (Maybe video gurus are the exception) $1,000-$2,000 more for a camera body is not a small number as well as the features those cameras offer.
The Either - ORs brake down to:
3100 vs 5100 vs 7000,
5100 vs 7000,
7000 vs D400,
D400 vs D700 vs D800.
Above that, people know That they can spend the $ for the pro bodies.

It looks like the 5100 is a great camera and more than enough for the normal user or for the non-techy amateur.

DSLRs are just like cars - 4-5 years they are worth 50% less and are a loosing end purchase. But just like a car - it can take you to where you need to go for the money. Glass is always a good purchase as long as your body is only one model from the newest. At that point, the body is probably the smartest purchase.

Posted 2 years ago #
Super Shooter

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 277
offline

If you guys care so much about older lenses then why do most of you want to buy new G lenses like the 35mm and 50mm 1.8G's? I like older lenses too but if the D5100 image quality is up there, then not having an AF motor isn't going to stop me. I won't miss the loud humming and whirring sounds of AF-D lenses.

Besides I'd rather get a D5100 instead of the D7000 and with the money I'd save get a better kit lens. I carry a D3S around at work so I like my personal camera to be small and light but still give great image quality. The D5100 sample images I've seen look good to me. Especially the high ISO shots.

Also if you plan to jump to FX eventually then the D5100 could be a great budget body to hold you over until the D800 is readily available or a used D700. After a year or so you can sell the D5100 and switch instead of feeling you have to keep the D7000 a few more years because of the higher price you paid.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mau d7000 Fin

junior member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 9
offline

5100 is no threat for the 7k

5100 is only an upgrade to the previous models

5100 as some have written already, is better than older models, but face to face with 7k loses under 20-30 aspects, as for the full hd 30fps even some compact camera does have it.

5100 can ONLY challenge with t2i and t3i
whoever says VS 7k has got no clue what is the 5100 is and what the 7k is ( a part flip flap screen and full hd )

as for the WAIT for what, the next d300s (d400) will be way expensive body only
so wait or not wait, we are talking about orange vs bananas (5100 body only can be half the cost of the d400 body only, dare to compare?)

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Mau d7000 Fin said:
5100 is no threat for the 7k

5100 is only an upgrade to the previous models

5100 as some have written already, is better than older models, but face to face with 7k loses under 20-30 aspects, as for the full hd 30fps even some compact camera does have it.

5100 can ONLY challenge with t2i and t3i
whoever says VS 7k has got no clue what is the 5100 is and what the 7k is ( a part flip flap screen and full hd )

as for the WAIT for what, the next d300s (d400) will be way expensive body only
so wait or not wait, we are talking about orange vs bananas (5100 body only can be half the cost of the d400 body only, dare to compare?)

Of course it is a threat. Why do you think Nikon would get rid of the D90? For less money you could pretty much get the D90 by buying the D5000. For the average consumer the D5000 probably stole lots of business from the D90. I think this is similar for the D5100 and the D7000. You give up some of the more pro level features that the average Joe probably won't miss, but shooting quality are about the same for less money...and well in the end for most people it really is about the money isn't it?

Posted 2 years ago #
Mau d7000 Fin

junior member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 9
offline

im not bashing the 5100, and i think a lot of people is fine and happy with a 4-5-600 dollars camera (3-5-5.1k) but if nikon put a camera model at 5-600 dollars and another one at 1000 there must be a reason (without reading all the specs)

it's like saying a Ford model is fine enough you do not need a Porsche so the Ford is better or same than the Porsche, wait, for who cannot afford and for the beginners (or pros who want a cheap second alternative) the 5100 is nice, good, perfect
but dont lie to yourself (not you :P) saying it's the same as an higher model because the Porsche will beat you every day (but hey, all you need is drive and go to work, well!)
if money is the matter than one can be happy with the bottom line of Canon or Nikon and find its 'pros' against the D3X (because if it falls or if you meet thieves you risk a lot less :D, because it's way lighter, because after all it's still a dslr, because you could invest all in FX lenses instead than having a d3sx body only.and 20 more 'because')

it's that kind of game of convincing yourself to be better looking than cinderella, just accept the range of your camera (as the d7k is way inferior to its higher rivals) and understand-accept your pros-cons.

i for example am not bothering on if the d7k is better or same of the d300s or of the even better newcoming d400, or d700 or whatever
the d7k sits in a level, and thats it.
so does the d5k and its older models.

i'd have liked a better d300s (d400?) but when it will be up it will cost MORE bodyonly, that i cannot afford, i do like a lot more the d7k than the d3100 d5k d5100 etc (or the canon entry level latest models)

nikon it's not stupid selling one body at 600$ and another at 1000+ with no differences (and we are talking about a limited time distance, not a 2-3 years difference)
if the 5100 was same or better(depending on your point of view) than the 7k, nikon would have priced the d5100 at a lot more expensive (since they are not santa claus)

cheers :P

CORRECTION: (Body Only) d5100 800$ - d7k 1500$ (d5k 650$, d3100 550$, Canon t3i 800$, Nikon d300s 1300$, d700 3.300$)

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

tcole1983 said:
Of course it is a threat. Why do you think Nikon would get rid of the D90? For less money you could pretty much get the D90 by buying the D5000. For the average consumer the D5000 probably stole lots of business from the D90. I think this is similar for the D5100 and the D7000. You give up some of the more pro level features that the average Joe probably won't miss, but shooting quality are about the same for less money...and well in the end for most people it really is about the money isn't it?

I fully believe Nikon and other companies sales rely on the initial "Push" of marketing and sell the majority of any body within the first 4-5 months. After that, sales drop drastically. (except the D700)

The 5000 was released about 8 months after the D90 so the D90 had more than enough time to sell to whomever was going to buy it. If they were released at the same time I would say it would hold true but they were not. This time, the 5100 was released about 7 months after. Once again same scenario. If they were released at the same time I would say it would hold true, but they were not. They have been keeping a similar time frame for the last 6 years so it must not hurt them. Give Nikon their due credit, they are not going to undercut themselves. They keep a very religious release schedule and is almost always within 100 days of when you would expect a body release.

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

TaoTeJared said:
I fully believe Nikon and other companies sales rely on the initial "Push" of marketing and sell the majority of any body within the first 4-5 months. After that, sales drop drastically. (except the D700)

The 5000 was released about 8 months after the D90 so the D90 had more than enough time to sell to whomever was going to buy it. If they were released at the same time I would say it would hold true but they were not. This time, the 5100 was released about 7 months after. Once again same scenario. If they were released at the same time I would say it would hold true, but they were not. They have been keeping a similar time frame for the last 6 years so it must not hurt them. Give Nikon their due credit, they are not going to undercut themselves. They keep a very religious release schedule and is almost always within 100 days of when you would expect a body release.

I agree, but after the D5100 is released I think it changes.

For the D5000 I looked at the D90. I got a very good deal on my D5000 (~$450 after I sold the kit lens). For my first dSLR I figured hey...about the same picture quality minus a couple of options and saving $400-$500, works for me. I think many people will fall into that mind set now that both the D5100 and D7000 are available...like I said it really is about the money. Most like me, if you aren't making money off of photography will sacrifice a little (the options on the D90 or D7000) to keep similar picture quality for a lower price. These are the same people that wanted more then the D3000 or D3100 since they are more like a point and shoot and there is a difference in picture quality. Just my thoughts though. I am not an expert, just my experience and what went through my head when I got mine. I also opted to spend more on a lens and less on the body then vice versa.

Posted 2 years ago #
mamulpo

new member
Joined: May '11
Posts: 2
offline

Hello, this is my first post :D

There was some events that changed my budget and my plans to upgrade my D5000. My first choice was the D7000. So I read the papers, spec and opinions everything was fine. I typed "D7000 problems" to look if there is any field o real issue with this camera. Surprisingly, I found many issues with the AF, Hot pixels, updates and shutters.

For me, the AF is a big issue. Because I suffer from farsightedness and other things, my needs move toward bigger viewfinder like D7000 and D300s and rely almost all my pictures to the AF.

It seems like everybody is complaining, D7000, about the AF and sending their camera to repair that would miss every thing for me. As I said, I have a very tight budget so I want to spend wisely. On one hand is the -D7000 with awesome features and the having the risk of annoyances about AF, pixs, upgrades. On the other, just playing safe with the rough and proven semipro cam D300s.

So, if my budget allows me, I will go to the D300s. If I receive a strong recommendation, I will go to the D7000. If any, I will wait with my D5000.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

Mamulpo,
I actually think the D7000 paired with really good lenses makes for excellent photography. Consider a few things if contemplating the D300s - it's an excellent camera - DX sensor in a pro-grade body - but it's due to be upgraded sooner as opposed to later and video quality is not what you'd get with the D7000. My co-worker has the D300s and he thinks my D7000 takes better pictures. That's his opinion and many might argue that it's close enough. He bought his D300s early last year and is already looking to upgrade to the D700 replacement whenever it arrives so that's why I say what I'm saying.

I can't speak much on problems with the D7000 - I've read about the complaints. But you could have problems with any of these cameras. Other than a couple of stuck pixels on video that were fixed with the first firmware upgrade the camera has been problem free for me. I haven't even done the 2nd firmware upgrade because as of now I don't need the fixes that it's supposed to address.

Don't know if you'd consider this a strong recommendation but at least you could factor it into your thought process. Good luck.

Posted 2 years ago #
mamulpo

new member
Joined: May '11
Posts: 2
offline

Rx4Photo said:

Thanks Rx4Photo, I consider this a strong recommendation

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

Having spent WAY too much on cameras in the past.....I am probably going to add the D7000 to our camera fleet which ranges from D100 (almost obsolete) to the D200, D300, D700. My conclusion agrees exactly with a number of posters on this thread. I for one use these cameras as a field tool. My days of over investing in camera gar are over. I would maybe like to wait and see what I could get in a D400 or D800 but the $3,000 body only price just pushes the cost too high. I figure if a few of the regulars own and appreciate the D7000 and are now convinced the problems are fixable it is getting high time we buy one or two and put them to work. That will probably take three months or so. But I would wager that the wait for a D400 or D800 and the price would be prohibitive for my son and I at this point. We especially need the HD video capability and we have several movie cameras.

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I should add that I use the D90 and a variety of specialized lens most of the time for field work. I also am pretty sure from Mike Gunter's posts that the D7000 video will quite exceed the D90 video.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi all,

"I should add that I use the D90 and a variety of specialized lens most of the time for field work. I also am pretty sure from Mike Gunter's posts that the D7000 video will quite exceed the D90 video."

This afternoon, I made 7 consecutive 20-minute 720P, 30fps clips. There was no errors or noise or any problems in any of the 140 minutes of video.

Other tests I've made have convinced me that the video isn't bad at all. I'm using the camera to cover part of a recital this weekend and I expect it to do fine.

There are some features that would be nice - IRE levels, sound levels, and others that would be nice to have that could be incorporated into a feature set in firmware or into the D800 or D4s that would be very, very attractive to FX users.

Last week, I was contacted by CNN for a feed and would have used the D7000 if the satellite truck was able to handle an HDMI feed. It would have been worlds better than the HVX200 analog they used. It was standard def upsampled to HD. HDMI as real HD would have been far, far better.

I'm considering selling my remaining tape cameras and going to the D7000 and a couple of small SD "tin can" AVCHD cameras for our video work. I really don't see that we need much more. The D7000 can do the serious lifting, and the tin cans cans are really terrific cameras (no matter how small they are). They mix well and grade in the edit bay well, too. The small cameras work for deep DOF, and the D7000 for shallow DOF.

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #