d7000 or d300s what would you get

Why would you get the d7000 when the d300s is only $250 more with more fps, more af points, the same or better

iso noise results and the same battries and grip as the d700 giving one a chance to uograde to fx and have great

combonation of dx and fx cameras.

<p>For the newer sensor, smaller and lighter body, mode saving feature, better video mode and AF during video, and the $250. And if you're not a sports shooter the extra FPS (requiring the grip) and the extra AF points (did you know a Canon 7d makes do with 19 and nobody seems to be complaining?) aren't such a big deal.</p>

<p>Neither. Save some bells & whistles, the D7000 still falls a bit short of the D300s, which was released a year and a half ago, and was Nikon's half way answer to the Canon 7D, which still beats it in a couple of areas. Nikon should be (better be) ready to release a decent upgrade from the D300s by this spring, and it better be able to go head to head with whatever Canon will release next. My wallet is in my pocket, and I'm sitting on it.</p>

<p>D7000 image quality will be higher than D300s, not to mention having base ISO at 100. I've seen samples from D7000 taken at ISO 6400 which are stunning, perhaps nearly as good as D700. D7000 is a few years ahead of D300s in this area...so D7000 by a mile. As a D300 owner, and former D80 owner, I am looking to go back to a camera the size of a D80 but with the image quality and features of the D300, which describes the D7000 pretty well. D300 is superb, but I don't need the fast AF most of the time, or the fast fps, or 51 AF points. I don't like the size and weight of the D300 either, which is why the D7000 looks so attractive to me.</p>

<p>IMO reasons to get a D7k over a D300s would be:</p>

<ul>

<li>Likely significant improvement in low light or high ISO performance. Given Nikon's track record, it'll likely beat the D300s noticeably in that department. The D7k replaces the D90, which already has marginally better IQ. </li>

<li>The increased resolution for me is lagniappe, but tasty for cropping in post. </li>

<li>The D7k frame rate is good enough for me. It beats my D200 and D700 (I skipped the D300/300s).</li>

<li>Apples-to-apples purchase cost. The d300s' successor's build quality and some features will undoubtedly be better, and will be reflected in the price - probably roughly double the D7k initially. Depending on holiday season sales, the D7k's price should drop after December. </li>

<li>D300s is a mature product, as reflected by its current price (hint: they're unloading inventory now so they don't get stuck like when Best Buy had overstock D200 at ~$599 new). IMO, depreciation on buying a D300s at ~$1450 (B&H, today) doesn't make any sense to me (it might to someone else with an urgent need). </li>

<li>Regardless of format, I'd prefer the same memcard in a given camera.</li>

<li>Slightly lighter and smaller. </li>

<li>My cameras don't see rough handling.</li>

<li>My cameras don't get soaking wet. $1k would buy me a lot of weather protection if I need it. $250 would buy me a lot of sturdy trash bags and gaffer tape. </li>

</ul>

<p>The only wart for me is the AEB, which hasn't improved since the D70s - I don't know a work-around without touching the camera. D7k even has mirror lockup, which I care about. I don't see FX as an upgrade from DX as much as a format change. I think the D7k will equal or be marginally better than the D700's IQ, and if it doesn't, the D300s' replacement most likely will. DX will still have the 'crop factor'. There's always the D700's eventual successor, though. Really, I think the IQ improvements are at diminished returns for most people (exactly why I skipped D300/300s). The D7k is probably enough camera for most practical purposes unless you really need FX for ultra-wide angle or some other specialized thing. YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm with Dave Lee on this. I "upgraded" from a D50 to the D300 at the start of this year having waited for the S model to get well established and bring the price of the 300's down. To be honest, despite the faster frame rate, and AF system I didn't see the IQ of my photography jump by leaps and bounds. Some of the high school sports I shot with my D50 and an old 70-210 AF 4-5.6 zoom were just as sharp and contrasty. I am strongly considering putting my D300 on the market in the next day or two. I live close enough to the NYC metro area to tap into that market. Anyone else out there considering selling their D300 (not the S) in favor of the upcoming D7000? <br>

I can recall numerous times where I left my D300 at home this summer if favor of my old Olympus C-5050 (circa 2003) for the size/weight issue alone. I also miss the scene modes from the D50 (which the D7000 has). For "on-the-go" snapshots and outdoor activities, I don't always have the time to set up a shot and prioritize or experiment with exposure setting values. I have the SB-800 flash unit and really thats all I seem to need so again, many of the advanced features on the D300 (regarding external lighting modes and adapters etc) I have not even used, and can't see using in the future.<br>

I might even bail out on the whole DSLR racket altogether and go with a 4/3rds EVIL system. One thing is certain for me.., the D300 has got to go (before the price drops even further)..I just can't see myself "growing into it" like a I thought I would. </p>

<p>I own D300 and D300s, but will switch to at least one D7000 as soon as prices will have come down to street level: smaller and nearly as rugged body, higher ISO performance (from what I have seen, hope this part will come true), and most of the bells and whistles I need for my kind of shooting. I love the D300s for the handling (that's why I'll keep the 300s), but in about half of my shootings, weight is more important than direct access to functions.</p>

<p>Actually the D7000 does have a magnesium alloy frame in addition to the top and bottom - it looks like a fairly solid body that's metal except for the cutouts (there's a photo of a stripped body in the writeup on the-web-site-that-must-not-be-named) and it's got weather sealing, and so does the optional grip, which is also mostly metal. Whether it's equally study and weather resistant as a D300s is still a question but I can't imagine the difference is huge.</p>

<p>I'm going to stick with my D90 for the foreseeable future because, really, it's excellent and I want to save my money, but if I were to buy a new Nikon and didn't mind the $250 I'd probably take the D7000.</p>

<p>Dave - that's a eye opener? High ISO almost as good as the D700?</p>

<p>Three years ago, I would say the D3's high-ISO results were stunning, but a lot of us have gotten used to that type of quality over time. The D300 has always been just a stop away from the D3/D700 anyway. Narrowing that gap with 3 years of advances in technology should surprise no one any more.</p>

<p>After I get my D7000, I'll do an A/B comparison. That should tell us how good the D7000 is.</p>

<p>I am a wedding photographer, I am using D300 + D700, but, definitely I will get D7000 because of one reason which is Video (To make my wedding slideshow more attractive)<br>

Although it is using SD card and also different batteries, but, the Nikon batteries is really not that expensive.<br>

I know D300s can do better than D7000 of some area, but, sometime, for a normal user, it make no different, and for me, I do not need the high frame rate on my D300 as well.<br>

My opinion, D7000 is with newer technology and sooner, all the coming new Nikon model will be similar as it. If there is something new on the market, why don't get the newer instead of getting the old technology?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Holger, $1199 in the USA is as low as I'd expect it to be for at least a year or so. I think that what the D7000 offers, $1199 is a bargain.</p>

<p>Dave, I would make that 3 months. The D700 was announced on July 1, 2008 and arrived stores later on that same month. Two months later discounts started appearing and I bought mine $200 off the original $3000 price in September that year. Soon after that, the discount went a little deeper to about $400 or so, and then the price has pretty much stabilized ever since.</p>

<p>We should see discounts for the D7000 after Christmas. A year from now, it'll be an old model that nobody cares about and I predict that Dave will be preordering the D400 by then. :-)</p>

<p>I quite like the SD cards that they are more portable than CF, a number of the more compact laptops now have switched to just a SD slot (away from CF with their old models). Thou I don't need dual cards for myself.</p>

<p>2 slots is more of a "pro" feature - the assumption is that a card can break or its file system can be corrupted. If a project is on the line, better to need extra memory cards than to risk losing shots. It shows the intent that this would be considered a "semi-pro" body.</p>

<p>Off the topic slightly, guys...my understanding is that the D7000 is not a replacement for the D90 but a new price-point model that will sit between the D90 and the D300S.</p>

<p>Shun, that's about the period I expect too. When the D90 came out, it took the Swiss market 3 months to bring the price down. First online shops over here already offer the D7000 body for CHF 100.00 (= USD 100, give or take) less than the official list price, even before it becomes available.</p>

<p>Both cameras fit my needs very nicely (actually, they both probably exceed them as well as my skills). Still, I'm upgrading my D80 and I'm trying to get the D300s, mainly for the size. The D80 feels too small and light on my hands to the point it becomes a bit uncomfortable operating the controls, the D7000 seems to be about the same size. The D300s is heavier and larger and that's a big plus for me.</p>

<p>Anybody wanna take a guess what iso this was taken at?<br>

No peeking at the exif data before guessing.<br>

Certainly better than the D90 and the D300s, not even taking the higher resolution into account.<br>

Maybe not D700 level, but something like 1-1.5 stops better than D90.<br>

Unfortunately I could not check it for very long because Photokina Saturday was pretty busy.<br>

I was surprised by the huge NEF files though, averaging over 20Mb, while my D90's are around 11Mb. Higher Resolution and probably 14 bits, but still. About 30-40% less pictures on your cards.</p><div></div>

<p>I think the D90 will disappear once current stocks are cleared out. It has no future. This is Nikon's way of reestablishing expectations at that price point. </p>

<p>Sjoerd, that is very good ISO 6400. I just shot some ISO 6400 with a D700 a couple of days ago inside a dark restautant and that does not look as good, but the only fair test is an A/B test under identical lighting.</p>

<p>WOW, that ISO 6400 D7000 sample looks like the ISO 400 quality from my Nikon P6000! Looks like the D7000 will certainly be a D300s killer in terms of high ISO image quality.</p>

<p>Shun, I completely agree with you that extensive testing under identical situations are needed for exact measurement. I also have some images where the noise is more obvious.<br>

The noise did seem a little 'different' than on the D90, maybe a bit more color noise.<br>

As you know the noise becomes ever so much clearer under lowly lit situations.<br>

I also don't know what the dynamic Lighting was set at. With my D90 I notice that that can change the noise a lot because it will lift up the parts with the most noise.<br>

If there is interest I can post a few images at different ISO settings.</p>

<p>Well dual memorys could be useful as I am hesitant in even carrying a portable HD, I like to travel light. I visit many cities like 2 days then I move on .. but then again I prefer to visit a internet cafe each week cos the D7000 is a bit larger than some other cams.</p>

<p>For the high ISO that looks pretty good eh .. looks like I won't base high ISO on FF cameras anymore b/c I cannot afford to buy the latest FF model each time to keep up.</p>

<p>Only thing is with a DX body, the wide angle is restricted to a 35mm if I need a fast prime for low light city photog. Anything wider than the 35mm with the Nikkors are just too bulky. But perhaps the 50mm could make do. I may get a 35/1.8 onto my good old D70 and see how it fairs :D</p>

<p>I actually pre-ordered my D7000 today, since it's not available in stores. They advised I should be called sometime in Nov. to pick it up; I can't wait!! I'm upgrading from a D90 and D60.</p>