FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Hkhabe, in the past I read somewhere in this forum that a refurbished lens (or camera) is better than a new lens made on a automated production line. At least with a refurb item, a skilled technician(s) is looking at every component of the lens and manually testing it. I am lead to believe that a "refurb" as undergone more scrutiny than a a similar production lens. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong. -FiddleMaker

Hkhabe Loc: Carlsbad, CA

Thanks- that makes sense to me.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Hkkabe, If I opt to purchase additional lenses, the first think I will do is look at the "refurb" lenses listed in Nikon's website. One lens that I was interested in was only $96 less for the refurb than a new one. I was expecting more of a savings. But then again the refurb should be as good or better than a similar new production one. -FiddleMaker

Hkhabe Loc: Carlsbad, CA

Thanks again, sounds like a good plan.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

also might want to check out b&h photo. they have lots of used and refurbished lenses and are a reputable dealer. i have never had an issue with them or their products. just go to bhphoto.com

Hkhabe Loc: Carlsbad, CA

I've looked there (B&H) - they advertise as "used" and give them various ratings depending upon how used but do not specifically state that they have been "refurbished" as they do at the Nikon site.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

I bumped up to the 7200 from 7100 a few months ago and what a difference! Buffer and low light auto focus alone were worth the upgrade. It does what I want when shooting sports (until I can afford a D4s) using a 70-200 lens. I can fire off several shots in RAW or more than I need in jpeg. I don't need a lot of reach if I'm sideline and 10-20 yards ahead of the shot. If stuck in the stands, I'd use a 300mm prime or 400mm in a perfect, unlimited budget world.

All that said... I just had my first chance to pick up and hold a D750 at the Nikon booth at DFW Photo Expo. Now I wish I had upgraded to that, I didn't realize how small it was. My brain thought D4 or 810 size. It does everything else I want to shoot and I'm getting too old to get on my knees for creative stuff. I'll probably get one along with a nifty 50, a wide angle zoom and an every day 24-120 walk around lens as soon as budget allows. Replacing DX glass has been my concern, but I can always shoot crop mode until I buy more FX glass. The D7200 will be a fine backup at that point.

Right now, my 7200 is a fine camera and beats the 7100 easily. those who thought the upgrades weren't significant enough to merit the expense were wrong .... I am so glad I moved up from that tiny 4 shot buffer and the AF and processor is measurably better. It still does 95% of everything I want to shoot.... I just want even better low light results and night time prints. I will then use D750/D7200 as my primary setup.

SirNorsky

I still have my d7000 and love it. In it's day, which really wasn't that long ago, it was the best. I still enjoy it, and I have produced many wonderful images with it. It was my re entry to photography after many years leaving my Minolta Dynax 7000i on the shelf for too many years.

I upgraded to a D610 about a year and a half ago, it is a nice camera too. I kept the D7000 for the crop factor, and I have two DX lenses. I still love to shoot it.

I just purchased the last of the trinity lenses and a D750. Now that is a truly amazing camera! It reminds me so much, in so many ways of the D7000. A truly remarkable camera for its time.

So I guess, you have to ask yourself... What is there to gain by replacing your D7000. It has its uses still, and is still a great camera. If you were going to, I guess I'd go with the D7200. But, the D7000 is still a remarkable little gem of a camera!

Happy Choosing!

DannyJS Loc: St. Helena Island

Hi, |I'd say if you really want to replace your D7000 with another DX (cropped sensor) DSLR then go for the D7200.
I have the D7100 which is really quite good - but there ARE some noticeable improvements built into the D7200.
If cost isn't a problem 7 you're looking for the best low-light performance then you should probably be looking at the D4/D4S. Happy shooting !!!

portcragin Loc: Kirkland, WA

I loved my D7000. I bought a Refurbed D7100 and it is terrific. Shooting both cameras at ISO 1600 in low light with great results. I enjoy the extra Megapixels with the D7100. Use good lenses and you will get great results. Of course you want to PP if you want great Photos. No Substitute for PP. End of subject.

Good shooting,

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

How can you get sharp using a 2x extender on a DX camera, not possible. Add a little noise and your screwed.. Need to upgrade your lens/focal length/ for starters. Try the new Nikon 80-400mmVR, still affordable, on a full frame camera that handles the noise better.

MtnMan Loc: ID

IMHO the D5300 is a far better choice. It is lighter, cheaper, and has a highly usefull fully articulated screen. It also includes GPS and WiFI.

It has the same 24MP sensor w/o filter as the D7100 or D7200... Not sure which.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I hated my D7000 and dumped after a few months. The button system and unreadable little green LCD sucked.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I can confirm that dxperience for Nikon cameras and lenses. I have also had excellent success with used Nikon lenses.

That said I caved on the 200-500 since it will be a while till used or refurbs are available. I agree with the other reports here: fabulous!

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

SteveR I'm afraid you're the one who needs to think this through again, although this issue has been discussed, and resolved correctly, countless times on UHH.

Although a lens of given focal length projects an image of the same size on the image plane of a crop sensor or a full frame DSLR, cropping in PP with a 24 or 36 Mp full frame sensor results in image that includes fewer pixels than an uncropped image with the same lens on a 24 Mp crop sensor camera such as Nikon D7100 or D7200. Here's the math for a crop factor of 1.5. When cropping that much with a FF camera to match the uncropped view on D7100, you reduce the number of pixels by a factor of 2.25. That leaves 10.67 Mp on a D750 (24 Mp sensor) or 16 Mp on a D810, compared to all 24 Mp on the D7100. That means better resolution and more detail with the crop sensor camera. The "reach" advantage of crop sensor is real, so long as the crop sensor has high enough pixel density.

But for D750 owners, such as myself, the D7100 or D7200 edge in shooting, for example, distant wildlife with a particular tele lens is even greater, since the D750 has an anti alias filter that slightly blurs the image, while the D7100 and D7200 do not.