Back-up camera

<p>Would you consider the D300s an appropriate back-up camera for my D700? I'm looking to purchase a back-up camera and the D300s is looking pretty good, but so is the D7000. The D7000 has excellent image quality but may not stand up to the rigors of the field. The D300s would match my D700 in body type and most applications. The D300s would share the D700's battery. The D300s is a good camera, but an older technology compared to the D7000, your thoughts on this would be most welcome. Thank you,<br>

<p>The ideal backup camera is a second body of the same model. Whether or not a DX camera can serve as a backup for an FX camera depends on what you shoot and the lenses you have - could you continue the shoot with your backup if the main camera fails? Comparing the D300S and D7000 as a backup camera, I would prefer the D300S as they share the same battery and CF card (as well as the same general outlay); with the D7000 you would also need to carry a different battery/charger and SD cards. The better high ISO capability of the D7K may be worth the extra trouble though.</p>

<p>There was a recent thread of the same or similar topic. There are people on both camps, d7000 and d300s. I think ultimately, it comes down to yourself...Do you use the battery grip often? If you mind not using the same type cards and Batteries. The d7000, they say, is one stop better than the d300s at high ISO. Is it worth it to you?</p>

<p>The d700 and d300 is very similar except their sensor. They share the same grip, battery, CF cards, menus system, almost the same weight...The d7000 does videos, smaller/lighter and a stop better at high ISO among other things...</p>

 

<p>Vince - </p>

<p>I use the D700 as my primary wedding body and 2 D300's as backup. I have thought about going to the D7000 but have resisted for 2 reasons - 1) battery is not compatible with the D700 and 2) memory cards are not compatible. </p>

<p>Ideally - yes - A D700 would be the best backup to the D700 - but not all can afford the $2,000 + outlay. </p>

<p>Nice thing is that all the Fx lenses work just fine on a D300s. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The D7000 has excellent image quality but may not stand up to the rigors of the field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why people keep propelling the idea that the D7000 is not well built enough. It is weather sealed just like the D700 and D300. I have taken mine on one foreign trip so far and have used it in the rain. It is fine.</p>

<p>It should be obvious to everybody who is at least a bit familiar with Nikon's DSLR product cycle that the D3 series, D300 series and D700 are all due or even overdue for updates. Personally I wouldn't buy a new D300S at this point; there is little doubt that it will lose value and become undesirable as soon as a replacement emerges.</p>

<p>The question is whether you are the type that updates your main camera often. If so, you might as well wait a bit until the D700 is updated; you get the new camera and the D700 naturally becomes the backuup.</p>

<p>If not, Nikon has replaced the older EN-EL3e battery technology with the new EN-EL15. The EN-EL15 is a lot more future proof than the old EN-EL3e, which has exposed electronic contacts and is being phased out. The D7000 is an excellent camera and at a bargain. But you need to be comfortable with its smaller size, which could be a plus or minus depending on the user's preference. It also uses SD memory cards, but you can always buy a $30 16G SD card and keep that in the camera. That will last many many captures. Memory cards are so cheap nowadays that I wouldn't worry about it any more.</p>

<p>D7000 is very similar in build to D90, and D80 for that matter. I've put both of those through absolute torture and they held up just as well as my D300. If you are a working pro who actually needed a D700, then obviously a second (used) body is the ideal back up.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I prefer the D300/s as a backup for the D700 due to the similarities in controls. I can go back and forth between the two without an issue. That plus same battery, both use CF cards, etc...all good reasons to go with the D300/s over the D7000. I actually prefer the D700 & D300 setup vs the D700 x 2 setup because of the versatility of the two formats working in conjunction with each other.</p>

<p>The D7000's build quality is between the D90 and D300/s...it's actually closer to the D300's build quality than the D90's. It's size and controls are closer to the D90, but that's where the similarities end. See Shun's post(s) for more info.</p>

<p>Hope this helps<br>

RS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D7000 is very similar in build to D90, and D80 for that matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, I am afraid that is not at all the case.</p>

<p>The D80 and D90 are essentially identical bodies with different electronics inside. Externally the D90 has a couple more buttons since it has video capture. (The D90 is the first Nikon DSLR that has video.) They share the same MB-D80 vertical grip; Nikon did not change the grip when the D90 replaced the D80. Neither one has a metal frame and neither one has weather sealing.</p>

<p>The D7000 has a metal frame although not as much as it is in the D300. The D7000 has weather sealing just like the D700 and D300.</p>

<p>The D7000 has controls similar to those on the D90 and is somewhat different from the D300S. The D700 and D300/D300S have very similar controls. To me, the difference is not at all a concern; I have no trouble switching back and forth, but I am sure it will annoy some people.</p>

<p>If the D7000 is a notch more solid than the D80/90, then I would say it's plenty tough enough for most users. The more important considerations would be the sharing of batteries (something I found crucial on my Iceland trip,) and memory cards. Another factor for the working pro would be similar control lay-out. Most who daily use a camera get to where their fingers automatically land on needed controls without having to look, or even think. When a fast breaking shot is blowing by, the pro is getting paid to nail it, not fumble with buttons.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder why people keep propelling the idea that the D7000 is not well built enough. It is weather sealed just like the D700 and D300. I have taken mine on one foreign trip so far and have used it in the rain. It is fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because people are in denial as I was when I first got my D7000 that indeed it is a better cam.. Now the D300s is the back up to it. As for the D700, I would agree that the ideal back up would be another D700. If that is not the case, then the D7000 would and is my choice followed by the D300s. </p>

<p>I`d not use any of my cameras under the rain (except with the Nikonos... ). I`m not a pro nor my gear is loaned-out. Even those weather sealed "to the rigors of the field" models will suffer malfunction under certain moisture levels (not so high in my experience with my D700).<br>

Of course non-sealed models should suffer in a higher grade.</p>

<p>Thanks for the GREAT info guys, but I still remain befuddled! You see, I sometimes take my camera equipment to the tops of snow covered mountains (<em>Kilimanjaro), the desert (certain parts of Egypt), the Rain Forest (Peru) etc. I need a camera to hold up. I am use to using film cameras like my F6, FM3A, Mamiya 6. I have partially switched over to digital and find it very useful indeed. Do you believe the D7000 will hold up to some rough use? The D300s is a hardened machine but with the older sensor...I'm not sure this would matter though. I have no use for a D3, I'd rather spend my extra money on good glass, which I do. I thank all of you for your in-depth and useful comments to my question, I await further instruction.</em><br>

<em>-Dusty Boot</em></p>

<p>The FM3A does not have weather sealing.</p>

<p>I am old enough to remember that when Nikon first introduced the FM back in 1977, the photo magazines described it as a flimsy camera, compared to the rugged constructions of the F2 and Nikkormat FT2 at the time.</p>

<p>If the FM3A holds up, the D7000 is not going to be any worse. Even my D100 has been to the Arctic and it was fine. The D100 was based on the very much consumer-grade $300 N80.</p>

<p>being able to swap batteries (and the grip) is a big plus IMO, all things considered. for one thing, you only have to bring one type of charger, which saves pack space. as noted earlier, the button placement and layout is very similar--another plus IMO. the d300s might have slightly better weather sealing than the d7000, but not so much that it would matter. it might come down to how much you will actually be switching between cameras. if you are using 2-body setups, the similarity/redundancy will be a plus. if you use the d700 as the main camera most of the time and only occasionally go to the backup, then that's less of an issue.</p>

<p>To Vincent; I think it all depens on the insanity of your trips. Everyday we have at the TV documentaries someone reaching the K2, Everest and all that kind of things, taken by a compact video camera (I wonder about their seals) that had to be above the well known climber... but I suspect they take care of their equipment even at 24000ft.</p>

<p>This article is worth a read: <em><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/mountain-climbing.shtml">Digital Mountain Climbing Photography</a></em> by Alexandre Buisse. About the convenience of using consumer grade, lighter gear. </p>

<p>I never had the need of a backup camera. If ever, as a backup for a D700, I would accept a D700. Where you need backups is with the batteries ( I have three), cards (I have plenty) and lens lids ( I loose them all the time). Never hat a problem with a camera as such. Spend the money for more lenses.</p>

<p>I think that your initial feeling about keeping battery and other components <em>compatible</em> is exactly right. Otherwise, it's not so much a backup as a second whole body. You want to simplify your life.<br>

Armies try to keep the number of different kinds of ammunition, etc. to a minimum; camera shooting is not all that different except you don't have to clean up the bodies afterward, as a rule.</p>

<p>Agreeing with JDM....</p>

<p>D300/s and D700 - Same Battery, same CF card, same controls...seems that the D300/s is really a backup and not a "second system", which is what I was trying to get across in my previous post.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>Ideally, no I would not because the formats are different. FX lenses you have for your D700 are going to be long by a factor of 1.5 on the D300. Ideally, your backup camera should be the same format as your primary. Unless you like lugging around twice the number of lenses.</p>

<p>This was not an issue when film cameras were the norm. You could have a top of the line Nikon F4s and could get away with a Nikkormat FT3 (a truly excellent camera in all respects), and not really lose a lot. But that is not the case today with multiple formats for the same basic implementation.</p>

<p>Once again, I appreciate everyone's input concerning my question. I went down to Precision Camera (Austin) today to compare the differences between the D7000 and D300s. WOW, the D300S is EXACTLY the same as my D700 in build and pretty much the same in use! The D7000, on the other hand, weighted much less, didn't feel as comfortable and solid as the D300s, and overall felt a little more (please don't take this the wrong way) like a high end enthusiast camera. I appreciate the D7000's ability to take good 1080p video along with the 16MP capture. The D7000 is certainly a nice camera, but I believe now that I'm going with the D300s...for this generation of Nikons. All of you have been great and I really appreciate your help with this!<br>

Thanks again,<br>

Dusty Boot </p><div></div>

<p>I would probably acquire the newer camera. Well, that is to say, I'd probably wait until the replacement for the D300s is here, but if I had to buy right now, then it would be the D7000.</p>

<p>Also, about the whole backup thing, I don't see anything wrong with just using two cameras :-)</p>

<p>Shun, the FM-3A is a very rugged little camera. It's shutter continues to operate even without a battery. In places were electricity is not readily available to recharge a DSLR's battery etc., The FM3A is a legitimate little workhorse.</p>

<p>Ofey, I bought an FE in the same year it was introduced, namely back in 1978; I still own that camera today. Later on I had an FE2 for about 15 years. Therefore, I am very familiar with the FM/FE line. The FM3a really is not all that different from the FM/FE from 1977/1978. As I said, back then, people described them as "flimsy" compared to the Nikon F2 and Nikkormat from that same era.</p>

<p>Sorry, the fact that it doesn't need battery to operate is merely silly excuses to justify those cameras. When you shoot film, you still need a good meter that needs battery, and when you travel to places where you cannot recharge DSLR batteries, you don't want to bring a bunch of film and worry about getting them processed promptly. Before the digital era, I used to travel to remote corners of the world with hundreds of rolls of film. Am I glad that those days are over.</p>

<p>Today, if I cannot recharge batteries, I simply bring sufficient batteries to last the whole trip. A few large-capacity memory cards will replace 100 rolls of film. Back in 2009 I went on a 3-week Antarctic trip and I shoot about 120G bytes of images; that is about four 32G memory cards.</p>

<p>Congratulations Shun! But I still prefer film for my art. Digital tags along for the snap shots. Having said that even without a meter its easy enough to bracket exposures and use your experience to use the manual settings.</p>