I am about to buy my first DSLR. I thought it would be a Nikon d5100, but after physical contact and comparison with the D7000, I have changed my mind.

However, I am in a dilemma as to which one to buy between a D7000 and a D7100. The D7100 sounds like a sharper camera, but the D7000 is much cheaper. I do not have a lot of money, so its become a rather big problem for me. I do mainly architecture and landscapes.

Can you provide me guidance as to which one I should go for?

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ There is no right or wrong answer that is the same for everyone, which is the type of question this community is set up to answer. Which is right for you is a personal decision based on your budget, your experience and ability as a photographer, and what types of images you wish to produce. Could you narrow your question down a little in terms of what type of photos you plan on taking, what your budget is, and so on? What lenses are you interested in as well? \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Jun 8, 2013 at 20:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ budget is up to d71000 + basic lens like 50mm or 35 1,8. I'm totally newbie. No DSLR before. \$\endgroup\$
    – CyberGuy
    Commented Jun 8, 2013 at 20:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If it wasn't worth it to some people, there wouldn't be a D7100, but it's a personal call. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Henderson
    Commented Jun 9, 2013 at 1:10

2 Answers 2


The D7100 and D7000 are nearly identical. You get higher resolution and built-in HDR is the major difference. You get a few more AF points but if you shoot mainly architecture and landscapes, they will make no difference. HDR you can do yourself since the D7000 also does bracketing.

The extra resolution only makes a difference for large prints. If you print small to medium sizes and share on the web, the D7100 wont buy you that much more, so saving your money for better lenses will make a much more significant difference.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It should be noted that the extra resolution also requires extra care to actually take advantage of. At such high pixel densities, a little bit of camera shake will decimate the benefits of having such a high resolution sensor. If one is shooting landscapes off a tripod with a wireless shutter release, it's probably ideal...anything hand-held might be better served with a lower resolution body and a better lens. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Commented Jun 8, 2013 at 22:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd consider the AF system substantially different. The 3500 is far better, especially in difficult situations. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 9, 2013 at 0:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Not only that, A poor lens easily wipes off the difference. If you can only afford the kit lens, then you cannot afford that camera's performance. \$\endgroup\$
    – Itai
    Commented Jun 9, 2013 at 2:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DanWolfgang - Buildings and mountains do not move very fast :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Itai
    Commented Jun 9, 2013 at 2:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Itai, perhaps not, but dimly lit (dusk, night even) buildings and mountains are less difficult to get an AF lock with a better AF system. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 9, 2013 at 10:18

Buy the D7000 and get an extra 50mm f.18 lens and you will not notice any difference, believe me!

  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree here, so much other great equipment that would make much more difference than the difference between the 7100 and 7000. Another lens, an external flash, a good tripod. In fact... for architecture especially at night or dawn / dusk I hope the OP budgeted for a good one. \$\endgroup\$
    – AthomSfere
    Commented Jun 8, 2013 at 21:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.