150 grams

<p>John, as Shun's image shows, the grip on the D7000 is formed differently than the one on the D90 - and that makes a difference (though in my case, neither grip fit well into my hand). In any case, the difference between holding a D90 and a D7000 is more pronounced than the weight difference suggests. To be blunt, the D90 feels light and insubstantial in comparison. <br>

As Shun's image also shows, there is a comparatively large difference in camera size (width in this case) between the D7000 and the D300/D300S. For me personally, it translates into a comfortable feel when holding the D300 and a cramped one when holding the D7000 - weight differences aside. Adding a grip will change the balance with longer and heavier lenses but won't do a thing about the cramped feel of the D7000 body.<br>

The only time I had a heavy and long lens that handled better on a smaller and lighter body was the case of the 300/4 AF IF-ED which balanced and handled better on a D70 (which is a larger body than the D80/D90/D700) than it did on a D200/D300.<br>

Only you can decide whether a D300S or D7000 is right for you - everyone will have different priorities and make their choice accordingly. There are two choices I made in that regard so far - that I won't replace my D300 with a D7000 now - the size factored into that decision but was not the only factor - and that I will wait for the D400 announcement before making another camera body purchase decision. A bit out of context - the decision to not move to FX has been made already a while ago.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shooting outdoor sports (where high ISO is not as important as AF speed), shooting in bad weather or dusty environments, or camping and hiking, as its very likely to get knocked about a lot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D300S has more AF points than the D7000. Otherwise, both have weather sealing and both are well made. Once I had the D7000 on my 500mm/f4 AF-S out shooting birds, and all of a sudden it started raining heavily. I picked up my tripod and ran to the car. By the time I got there, the D7000 was all wet. I used a towel to dry it off and it was just fine.</p>

<p>There is absolutely no reason for me to believe that the D7000 is any weaker than the D300S under poor weather and dusty conditions. When I go hiking, the D7000's lighter weight gives a small advantage. I also own bigger cameras, and I prefer to have a D7000 precisely because it provides a small alternative when I need one. Whether a smaller camera is to your liking or not is entirely up to you to decide.</p>

<p>Seriously, I believe the OP has considered this enough. As they say at Nike, sometimes you are better off to "just do it."</p>

<p>Deiter,</p>

<p>Those are good observations . I really need to find a D7000 to put my hand on, before I make a final decision. I'd be surprised if the BestBuys will have one on display, due to the price. The one I went to had a lot more on the display than the local ones I have been to, but even they didn't have a D7000 out of the box. The D300s was in a box, but because it was an "open box" item, they let me mess with it. The D7000 had to stay closed up.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D7000 has similar metering to the D80, it isn't the same level as the D300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, actually, the d7000 has an all-new meter, according to Nikon. i think it might be better than the d300 meter (which might be the cause of the confusion about AF speed between the two cameras). What is clearly different between the two is engineering. the d300 and300s are high-performance machines engineered for sports shooting. the D7000 is a prosumer camera which is pretty good for sports in terms of AF and fps, but a notch below the higher-end bodies. There is a difference in ergonomics which reflects each camera's place in the market segment. The d7000 may be newer tech, and has the bells and whistles to prove it, but it's clearly not as high-performance-oriented as the d300 and 300s, not to mention the D3 series. that's also why its a smaller overall body, with more cramped button placement.</p>

<p>This is, i believe, where the greatest difference lies. Personally, unless you have a clear reason why you need a d300 or d300s, i would probably go for a D7000 if i were the OP. for myself, the d300s made more sense and i wouldnt trade it for the newer body (though i wouldnt mind upgrading my d90). But for others who maybe dont shoot events or need such a robust level of action performance, the d7000 is probably a better choice. Balancing with large lenses is an issue, but i'd place that low in terms of criteria, since you can just add the grip if needed.</p>

 

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>In many ways, the D300 is over kill for the amount I shoot. I probably don't need the ruggedness, even if I do plan on taking it while hiking. I haven't ever shot off bursts of shots, with my F4, even at auto races, but, since images are free, with digital, as opposed to slides, I might give that higher fps a try. Some have mentioned that the D300s can lock on moving objects better than the D7000, in recent posts, so that is something I might consider.</p>

<p>The clear reason I was considering a D300, and a D200 before that ,was my lens collection. Mostly ALL are AIS manual focus. Until the D7000 I had little choice. When the D7000 came out, I was jazzed. But the size is something that concerns me because all I have are older, heavier lenses. In this test I made, this weekend, the D300 just felt better with my biggest lens.</p>

<p>I do find it a little odd that after many years of reading here, where people often tell new users to get the camera that fits their hands best and the placement of the controls makes sense, that in THIS case, those ideas are given a back seat to the tech specs. </p>

 

<p>John, I have an F4, an F5, an F100 ... and I have a D2X, D300, D700. I have tested every variation of the D3 family and now I also have a D7000. Every one of those cameras fits very well in my hands. As I pointed out earlier, I used the D7000 on my 500mm/f4 AF-S with a heavy tripod; that combo works out very well.</p>

<p>To me, the difference between older and newer technology is very noticeable. When you reach ISO 1600, the D7000 is considerably better than the D300/D300S. Even at ISO 800, you can see a difference in the noise in the background. The difference between 1080p HD video that can last 20 minutes is also a big difference. Back in 2005, I paid close to $5000 for a new D2X. In a little more than 2 years, the $1800 D300 beat the D2X is just about every conceivable way such that the used value for the D2X sank like a rock and I haven't used the D2X again ever since. If you buy a D300S now, be prepared that it'll be like the D2X 4 years ago, but at least you don't start with $5000 so that your down side is much more limited.</p>

<p>"I have an F4, an F5, an F100 ... and I have a D2X, D300, D700. I have tested every variation of the D3 family and now I also have a D7000. Every one of those cameras fits very well in my hands."</p>

<p>You've got one size fits all hands. For you, the size and weight of the camera doesn't matter. That's really simplifies things. Unfortunately, I seem to have developed a preference.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I notice from Shun's handy top-view comparison pic that they've gone 'back' to the much nicer sling swivels for strap attachment in the D7000. My D90 had a rough burr on the right fixed 'slot' and started chewing on the strap as the camera swung at my neck. Luckily I noticed the fluffy black bits and smoothed it off with a bit of fine emery paper. <br>

I think the swivel mounts also make the camera and strap (I use a OP/TECH neoprene on my 90 and 300) sit much more comfortably too.</p>

<p>The beauty of Nikon DSLR cameras is that they are designed so that for most people, you can go from their largest body to their smallest and still have it feel good in your hands. But this of course does not apply to everyone. (My way to cope with smaller bodies is to add a grip.) John, since you found the D90 cramped (the D7000 is the same size as the D90) and have a strong preference to size, you have made your decision easy - get the D300s and enjoy it. You will not be disappointed.</p>

<p>John,<br>

I understand what you mean by the different feel of the camera; I own a D300 and have used a D90 extensively. I have not, however, used the D7000, and cannot comment there. I would personally advise either waiting until summer, or buying second hand.</p>

<p>A few things to mention:</p>

<p>-Your 300mm is an AIS lens. I assume that you have several manual focus lenses because of your F4. I have a 50mm f/1.4 AIS and an FE2, amongst other lenses... <strong>the D300 (and by extension D90/D7000, both of which have inferior VFs) is far, far harder to focus manually than film cameras</strong>. I find it virtually impossible, enough so that I never use the 50mm on the D300. This despite the fact that I have good eyesight and prefer using MF on the FE2 to AF on the D300. There are two solutions: use the focus confirmation (a green dot appears at the bottom of the VF when the selected AF box is in focus), or use liveview. I find both to be terrible solutions, and the only real way forwards is getting a Katz-Eye screen or using only AF lenses, both of which add cost. Something to think about.</p>

<p>-<strong>ISO</strong>. You photograph fast moving subjects with a long lens, which implies you need a camera that has good high ISO. The D7000 is significantly better in this area than the D300s.</p>

<p>Hope this helps<br>

Anatole</p>

<p>Anatole,</p>

<p>Yeah. That worries me. I posted in a thread where someone mentioned that they got 80% sharp photos, with the D700 and only 25% sharp shots with the D300, when using manual focus. I have kept that in mind and knew I may have to buy a KatsEye screen, after the fact. Does the D7000 have interchangeable screens ?</p>

<p>On the other side of the focus coin, with motor sports shots, I almost always prefocus, and try to use an aperture that will give great enough range of focus that if the subject is not right where I expected, it should still be in focus. The difficulty is how fast they move in and out of that focus point.</p>

<p>Actually, focusing the D7000 and other Nikon DSLR bodies with live view is easy because you can zoom in on the subject to focus manually - it is both is easy and very accurate. Obviously bright sunlight could pose a bit of a problem but this issue can easily be resolved.</p>

<p>I found another , closer BestBuy that had the D7000. As it turned out, they also had the D300s. I guess the website search didn't show that, because they only sold the kit, and not the body separately. So, I drove down to try lens test Mark II. First problem, was mine. I found I didn't pack my 300mm. However, with my 75-150mm, the balance was very similar. The noticeable difference was with my left hand. The D7000 is just a bit smaller on the left side of the lens mount, and I could tell. I don't think that is a deal breaker. The grip did feel better than the D90, and having a battery in it probably helped.</p>

<p>I'll have to make a THIRD trip to fest with bigger lenses.</p>

<p>Looking at the tops, while I waited for the sales guy to let me at the cameras, the most obvious change is the buttons on the top. White Balance, ISO, and Qual were in the top, and probably easy to get to, on the D300 and D700. Are those functions easy to access on the D7000 ? The other buttons I normally use are Exposure Lock and Depth of Field Preview. I didn't get a chance to find those. Are they buttons or menu items ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>john, are you planning on handholding the 300?</p>

<p>if not, the balance may not matter all that much in the end, since you'll be using a tripod or monopod, probably lens-mounted. where the size/weight does matter is with heavy standard zooms, i.e. the 24-70 and 70-200. even then, a d7000 with a grip will help over just the body alone, to a somewhat lesser extant than the d300 w/grip will. so this might be more of a semantic concern than an aesthetic one.</p>

<p>as shun and myself both pointed out, the D300s isn't the newest camera out there. i personally feel dialed into it and i wouldnt trade its ergonomics for anything--in some ways i prefer its AF over the D3s, which IMO takes a split-second longer to lock focus (and then is blazingly fast) and also has a more cramped focus point array (though it does balance better with big lenses)--but if you've never used continuous shooting as you noted, more FPS and better AF may not matter to you.</p>

<p>button placement could be an issue if ergonomics are more important than future-proofness, but this is really an individual decision.</p>

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>The 300mm may be used hand held or on a support. I haven't had the best luck panning with it, but I need a long lens since I can't always get to the spots were the paid photographers are allowed, at race tracks. I've used a tripod and monopod.<br>

I feel a little better about the D7000, after testing it with a battery installed. I will, of course wait to see what the D300 replacement is, if it is announced in the spring. The price point could be a problem.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>john, after all this your going to wait for the D400? I will bet it will come in at about 2k...i know that when that comes out, i will get one as well, but for now i will continue to enjoy my D7000</p>

<p>If the features that the "D400" might have over the D7000 or D300 are simply faster FPS and ruggedness, then it won't be that much of a draw for me. If it is an order of magnitude better than the 7000 or 300, then .... I probably still won't be able to bite that bullet. But I have to know. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are holding the camera correctly, most of the weight is taken by the left hand, which should be positioned to balance the lens and camera as a whole.</p>

<p>I wouldn't take a 15 year old car further than I would be willing to walk for assistance. The same applies to British sports cars of any age ;-)</p>

<p>Not much has changed in 15 years for Ford. It may have 160K miles on it, but outside of a few rattles and squeaks, it runs and stops just fine. Jeep Wranglers have gotten BIGGER, but I don't think much safer. About 80K on that car. It runs fine. The 65 Mustang is a long term restoration project.</p>

<p> </p>