Nikon d7100 or Tokina 11-16?

M

madmardle

Messages
1,056
Name
Ken
Edit My Images
Yes
Bit of a strange comparison I know but bear with me. I have been using my D90 since buying it from new 3 years ago and have been very happy with it. It does everthing I need and more, but ever since the D7100 came out I have been lusting after one. My main reason was the lack of a low pass filter which is supposed to give sharper images, although I know there are many other advantages, weather proof body, faster more accurate focussing etc.
In John Lewis on Saturday they let me take a shot with my camera and lens (16-85), and take a pic, then put my lens and memory card on a D7100 and take the same photo. Obviously I couldn't see any difference on the screens, but comparing the shots on my PC I still couldn't see any difference, so I started to wonder if I really need to change. I almost have the funds in place for a D7100, but today I was in my local camera shop and the proprieter showed me a used but mint Tokina 11-16 (whether it is the mark II or not I didn't notice) for which he wants £300.
I have always fancied an ultra wide angle, but if I get this one it throws me back that amount and farther away from a D7100, should I be concerned about that?
I don't have any specific interests, just general photography.
 
tbh, if you're happy with your D90, keep it. The Tokina 11-16 pro is a great lens, sharp & built like a tank! If you get the lens (seems a good price too, if it's in exc cond) it will open up a new/wide world to shoot.
Keep saving & upgrade when you can. The D7100 will get cheaper too.
 
Thanks Carl, that's what I was thinking, being retired it will take me a while to save again but as you say perhaps the D7100 will come down in price especially if a newer model comes out which it surely will.
 
If you couldn't see a difference in the images produced from each camera, then just keep the D90. Adding lenses to your arsenal will open up more creative possibilities. Upgrading from the D90 to the D7100 will so absolutely nothing for you creatively.
 
There are many test that show lack of low pass filter makes b****r all difference in the real world - all cameras that have them are so high resolution that other factors impact long before OLF makes a difference.

I recently got myself pondering newer high resolution sensors and so bought a D3200 and on the whole I'm indifferent about it, there's not much real difference to my first DSLR, the D60 (which I then changed for a D90). Don't get hung up on the latest body being the answer to all your prayers.

My view is that a new body won't actually get you any different images, a UWA lens will, so if you want to achieve something different then go for the lens.
 
No doubt the D7100 will reduce in price further. It's already come down to around £830 for UK supplied & around £670 for an import. (There's always the D7000 if you NEEDED to replace the D90 sooner)
Keep saving just a little bit longer Ken. :cool:
 
The lens would be a damn sight more useful.
Learn to use it with the body you know.
 
pooley said:
Another vote for the lens. If you don't notice an IQ upgrade the new body is pointless
Click to expand...
Couldn't put it better myself.
 
bought a d7100 last august it lasted 4 weeks before the electronics went doo-lally ,refusing to review images or even get the menu up .took it back to the retailer they changed it for a new one that one lasted 5 weeks before the same problem happened ,i was on a knife edge all the time i had it ,got a full refund sold my lenses and changed to canon .in your case i would go for the lens and look for a good secondhand d300s its a far superior camera .
 
You were unlucky. I've never had a Nikon body break on me in 25 years. Stop trying to scare people. Your experience is hardly typical... nor was your reaction.

I wouldn't bother upgrading the body to anything.... spend the cash on lenses until you actually find yourself needing to upgrade. At the moment, you seem to have no need to change the camera whatsoever, so doing so is wasting money.
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
bought a d7100 last august it lasted 4 weeks before the electronics went doo-lally ,refusing to review images or even get the menu up .took it back to the retailer they changed it for a new one that one lasted 5 weeks before the same problem happened ,i was on a knife edge all the time i had it ,got a full refund sold my lenses and changed to canon .in your case i would go for the lens and look for a good secondhand d300s its a far superior camera .
Click to expand...

Had to return mine as well and bought the D800 - there are a number of reports of early D7100 having faults.
 
While true... shouldn't condemn a whole range of cameras because of early production issues. It's been out for a long time now. Early model cars nearly always have some issues too, regardless of who makes them. The more complex a design, the more likely it is, as all companies are under pressure to release new products ahead of competition. The D800 had the left focus AF issue. The Canon 5D had the mirror falling off issue. The 7D had AF issues. (shrug).

The lesson is.. don't rush to buy anything on the first day of release... no matter what it is.


Anyhow... going OT now, sorry.
 
Pookeyhead said:
While true... shouldn't condemn a whole range of cameras because of early production issues. It's been out for a long time now. Early model cars nearly always have some issues too, regardless of who makes them. The more complex a design, the more likely it is, as all companies are under pressure to release new products ahead of competition. The D800 had the left focus AF issue. The Canon 5D had the mirror falling off issue. The 7D had AF issues. (shrug).

The lesson is.. don't rush to buy anything on the first day of release... no matter what it is.


Anyhow... going OT now, sorry.
Click to expand...
hold on matey ,i,m not condemning nikon at all i have owned most of there models in fact i sold a d7000 and a d300s to fund the d7100 ,and went for a u.k shop to get the 2 year warranty ..the reason i changed to canon was that there was nothing else in my price range to go for after the 7100 debacle ,and mine were not early examples i waited 6 months + for the bugs to be ironed out before buying .as well as that a good friend of mine bought one from another dealership in the city two weeks after me and his went in the same way in the same time frame ,his initial camera was exchanged as well then the second one also went faulty ,that was returned to nikon and they either repaired or exchanged it for him .personally looking at his pics i still think he has a faulty one .so its not just a glitch with two faulty cameras it was actually four .
however another friend of ours with the same camera and lens set up has never had a problem...sorry but i,m to old to waste the days i have left to me on faulty equipment if its supposed to work in my book it should end of story ,and my reaction was based on that premise .and the fact that as a o.a.p i cannot pull extra funds out of the air to fund a hobby .

the O/P asked a question my reply was put up as a the grass is not always greener answer .leave it at that .
 
Well that seems pretty clear what everyone thinks, I'll go for the lens and keep saving, I wasn't going to let the D90 go anyway as what they are fetching now it's not worth it. Although I don't need two bodies I suppose it's always having a back up.
Many thanks to all who took the time to reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top