Post 33

A few days ago, I wrote a post about the announcement of the Nikon D7100, and how I wasn't all that excited about the new camera that will surely replace my beloved Nikon D7000. Over the past few days, Iv'e been reading about the camera more, and watching YouTube videos from various sources to see what other people have to say about the new dSLR.

While reading through comments on Facebook and reading through the comments on YouTube videos, a misconception seemed to be affecting a number of people. This misconception being that the Nikon D7100 is an "upgrade" to the D7000.

Yes, the D7100 is an improved version of the D7000, with it's more megapixels, more focus points, and slight button/layout changes, but for some reason, some people are getting upset because the D7100 isn't an "upgrade" to the D7000.

The D7100 is exactly that compared to the D7000, an improved version. For people to think that the next version of a specific camera is going to be an "upgrade" is a bit unrealistic. When I think of a camera being an upgrade, there have to be big reasons to run out an buy it. Honestly, a newer version of a camera will never be that. Especially considering how many awards the D7000 has received since it was first released, there is no reason for Nikon to completely churn out a new camera, and if they did, it probably wouldn't be called the D7XXX; the new camera would most likely have an entirely new name. As far as I know, the D7100 is going to be $1200 for the body only, which is the exact same price the D7000 was a few months ago. Also, it still sounds like the D7100 will be a "pro-sumer" camera, or at least the top-of-the-line consumer camera.

If every new camera a manufacturer came out with, then eventually, the prices of their cameras would be ridiculous. If a camera company was expected for the bodies they make to replace older models, then eventually the prices for new bodies would be ridiculous.

For instance, the D3000, which was Nikon's entry-level dSLR was released in 2009 for $600. In 2010, Nikon's new entry-level dSLR, the D3100, was released for not much more. In 2012, Nikon released their newest entry-level dSLR, the D3200. These cameras weren't meant to be complete overhauls of these cameras. They were simply "updated" versions to stay current with other companies, most specifically Canon, and were a way to keep progress going in the world of dSLRs. None of these cameras posses anything that would cause someone who owned a previous model to run out and buy a the one that just came out, unless you owned a D3000 and went to a D3200, which wouldn't make much sense, anyway. If you really want to upgrade, go out and buy the camera that's the next level up. If I had a D3100, and I wanted to upgrade, the smallest jump I would make is to a D5200. I would go from Nikon's entry level camera to their "mid-level" camera, because even though the D3200 would be newer than the D3100, the D3200 is still an entry level camera, just like how the D7000 was the top-of-the-line consumer camera, the D7100 is the new top-of-the-line consumer camera. If the D3100 was meant to be an "upgrade" to the D3000, then that means Nikon would have to raise the price of the D3100, and if the D3200 was a replacement for the D3100, then the price of the D3200 would have to be increased. Eventually, companies would be putting out "entry-level" dSLRs that started at thousands of dollars.

So no, the D7100 will not be an upgrade to those who already own a D7000, but it should have never been thought of that to begin with. If you own a D7000, then an upgrade would be a D600, which I'm personally not fond of, a D700, if you can find one, a D800/D800E. a D3x/s. or a D4. Cameras that are meant to replace older versions of a camera will always be in the same category.