WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

My advice also.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Don't get much better than that.

portcragin Loc: Kirkland, WA

Thank you,

Good shooting

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Shot this in a dark room with my D7200, no lights hand held.

(Download)

portcragin Loc: Kirkland, WA

Very nice. Do you remember the ISO?

Good shooting

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

The D7000 is a good camera. The D7200 has a number of important improvements to the sensor, better low-light performance, a tad sharper. For me it was a good jump. I bought mine as a Nikon factory refurb from Cameta. Saved several hundred dollars. The only way I could tell it wasn't new was the box it came in said "refurbished" Cameta gives you a long warranty beyond Nikon.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

You have gotten some good advice and some questionable advice. First of all the main difference between the D7000 and the D7100 or D7200 is the pixel count of the sensor. D7000 has 16 Mp, while D7100 and D7200 have 24 Mp. That is a really big difference. The D7100 and D7200 lack the blurring AA filter which is also important but less so than the difference in the number of pixels. I shoot D750, D7100 and D7000. Even with the D7000 it is possible to make quite sharp 20 x 30 prints. Do you make prints that big or bigger? Do you make shots where heavy cropping is necessary, such as wildlife far away? If not you will notice no improvement in your shots, as long as you don't pixel peep.

Then there's the question of high ISO performance. According to DxO, the high ISO performance of these three cameras are very similar. Don't take anyone's word for it. Go to the DxO website and look it up.
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D7100-review-Update-to-popular-DSLR-drops-anti-alias-filter-for-sharper-images/Nikon-D7100-versus-competition
In this particular comparison of what they call Sports Low Light ISO it's 1256 for D7000 versus 1167 for D7100. That sounds impressive, but if you read about their methodology it's (much) less than 1/3 of a stop. For D7200 it's 1333. If you are really interested in low light performance you need to consider a full frame camera such as Nikon D750. DxO Sports Low Light ISO for that camera is 2956. That's a little more than a full stop better so that should give you an idea how insignificant the differences among their DX cameras are. Some will claim their D7200 is way better at very high ISO but, if true, that's because in their most recent cameras Nikon is "cheating" in a way by putting more in camera noise reduction in producing their Jpegs. You can do even better in post production using noise reduction software on your computer. D7200 has almost a full Ev advantage over D7000 in dynamic range. That sounds really good too, but in the type of photography you say you do, it's doubtful you would ever see the difference.

All that said, here's my advice: If it won't blow a big hole in your finances, buy the D7200 and keep your D7000.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

2000 iso, I have shot some at 8000 and they are nice. WONDERFUL Camera.

srfmhg Loc: Marin County, CA

I was faced with the same dilemma a year and a half ago. I bought the D7200 which I absolutely love but I kept the D7000 - also a great camera. I keep a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 on the D7200 and a 24-70 f2.8 on the D7000 when I shoot my granddaughter's dance recitals and other performances and it's great not to have to change lenses.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Bought the d7000 in December of 2013. Still love it and use it. In March 2016 I bought the d7200 and wow.
More mps, no low pass filter, faster focus, better in low light with higher ISO, +.
Keep my 18-200 VR ll on my d7200, and my 70-300 VR on my d7000 for wildlife and sports.
Hope this helps the d7200 is awesome.

Duane

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Lens?
Settings?
I have a 7200. I also own the 35mm f1.8. Get great shots indoors handheld.

rdfarr Loc: Floridian living in AL

I have a D7000. It already has far more features and capability than I actually need.
Why chase technology? As soon as you buy the latest and greatest, there will soon be a successor.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I agree that the D7000 is a wonderful camera - that is what I have been using for the past 5 years. When the upgrades replaced my camera as the best of its class, I did not see the point in spending a lot of money when the D7000 was good enough for me. However, when an individual realizes there are things that it will NOT do the way that person wants, then it is time to consider an upgrade. This is why I just ordered my "wishlist" camera, the D810! Better resolution is its forte' and that is what I want. The D7000 will be my second camera and I will no longer have to change lenses so often in the field.

My point is, some people are happy with the camera they have because it is sufficient for what they need to do. Others yearn for improved capabilities in their camera. For a while purchasing better lenses can be the answer, but those better lenses (FX) will reach their full potential on the FX camera!

marionhughes

Here is something that most wont tell you about the 7200. Without an anti-aliasing filter you will see greater moire in shots of buildings, clothing and anything else with a tight pattern. This can look like wavey lines and can take on reds and blues. This effect is very hard to remove. If all you do is scenery the camera is excellent.

klaus Loc: Guatemala City, Guatemala

I upgraded from the D7000 to the D7200 and wound up purchasing a complete new set of lenses, mostly primes. The D7200 is capable of stunning pictures but because of the higher megapixel count and lack of the optical low-pass filter needs good glass. I have my doubts you would be happy with the results from the Tamron 18-270. I sold my Nikon 18-105 just because of that. I'm sure you would like the low-light capabilities of the D7200 which is noticeably better than the D7000. The focusing system and high speed buffer also much improved. To sum it up I liked my D7000 which was great for it's time but I would never go back.