From D300s to D7100?

jti · April 22, 2013

My D300s is getting old (over 130k shots). If I change it to D7100 is it up- or downgrading? What are the gains and loses? I need high ISOs (800-1600) because I shoot guite much birds in the fly. Or should I wait until my camera breaks down and new D400 is published?

pushkarrajsharma · April 22, 2013

let me draw a table that i saw online ( i hope it helps )

Why not going from D300s monster to a d600 FX ?? if you need a high ISO .... or a proven body like d700 or second hand of it ( prices slashed post d600 )

i m currently an owner of D300s as well but at very low shutter count about 8.5-9k

<tbody>

<h3>Advantages of the Nikon D300S</h3>

</th></tr>

<tr>

<td >Shoots faster</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Around 20% faster continuous shooting</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Thinner</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Almost the same</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Slightly cheaper</td>

<td>

</td>

The best price we've seen is Rs.21,071 cheaper (more than 20% less)

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<tbody>

<h3>Advantages of the Nikon D7100</h3>

</th></tr>

<tr>

<td >Significantly better image quality</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Around 20% better image quality</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Better color depth</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Distinguishes 1.7 more bits of color</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Significantly larger screen</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Around 10% larger screen</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Significantly higher resolution screen</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">More than 30% higher resolution screen</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Lower noise at high ISO</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">The D7100 has a slight edge (0.7 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Much higher true resolution</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Capture around 2x more detail in your photos</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Higher resolution movies</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Shoots higher resolution Full HD (1080p) video at a higher frame rate</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Has in-camera HDR</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Combines multiple exposures to capture high dynamic range</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >More dynamic range</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">1.5 f-stops more dynamic range</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Video autofocus</td>

<td >Contrast detection</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Automatically focuses shooting video</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Better maximum light sensitivity</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">The D7100's maximum light sensitivity is 1 f-stop better</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Lighter</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">Around 30% lighter</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Smaller</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">More than 10% smaller</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr >

</tr>

<tr>

<td >Better boost ISO</td>

<td>

</td>

<td rowspan="2">The D7100's boost ISO is 2 f-stops better</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

tim_eastman · April 22, 2013

Devastating table. Nikon should put you on payroll!

Could you compare the D7000 & D7100 in a similar fashion? I have a D7000 and my father replaced his D300 with a D7100. He tired of waiting for the D400 and it seems the D7100 is the new heir to an orphaned line. I hope the D7000 fares more favorably. Image quality is amazing.

Wouter Willemse · April 22, 2013

Devastating table? Depends.... is smaller better? Is lighter better? Are you actually hindered by the 1.5 stop less dynamic range? Do you ever use video at all? Is your PC going to be happy dealing with files twice as large? Not all advantages listed in this table are necessarily advantages. I mean, the comparisons in the table are all correct, but some of the conclusions, I would not draw ("2x more detail in photos" because you have twice the pixels - not too sure, "The D7100's boost ISO is 2 f-stops better", no it's stops more, which does not necessarily mean better). This is a comparison of specifications - now, on to the real world where you hold a camera in your hand and actually start to shoot photos. That's a different thing.

There is no doubt the D7100 is a massively competent body. But given that the OP indicates to shoot flying birds (a good reason to stay with DX too, by the way), the lack of buffer on the D7100 could well be a deal-breaker (it's missing in the table, yes). It could hinder long burst shots quite significantly.

Another point is handling. The D300s is a big, heavy block of a camera, and some people like this beefy feel. I haven't seen a D7100 yet, but worked with a D7000 on occassion - and in my hands, it just doesn't feel half as nice. So, even if the D7100 would win on all specs, that still leaves you with a trip to a store to first feel and try for yourself how you like the handling of the D7100. Coming from a D300s, you may find that it's a bit small, cramped and light....

pushkarrajsharma · April 22, 2013

wouter is actually correct The table is mere specs ...real world differs .. i really cant guide on that ...but overall d7100 seems a better choice these days than d300s and TIM for your request

AND I WISH FOR A D400 AS WELL , NIKON SEEMS not to do it in near future ..not sure ever even after d7100 ....

well ;)

<h3>Reasons to buy the Nikon D7000</h3>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Wide dynamic range</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

<td>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Weather sealed</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Shoot in extreme weather</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Movie continuous focus</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Makes it easy to get in-focus movies</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

<td>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Great battery life</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>1050 shots</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Many focus points</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

<td>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Great viewfinder coverage</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

100%

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<table>

<tbody>

<h3>Advantages of the Nikon D7000</h3>

</th></tr>

<tr>

<td>Longer battery life</td>

<td>1050 shots</td>

<td>950 shots</td>

<td rowspan="2">More than 10% more shots per battery charge</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Smaller</td>

<td rowspan="2">Almost the same</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Cheaper</td>

The best price we've seen is Rs.19,398 cheaper (more than 20% less)

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<table>

<tbody>

<h3>Advantages of the Nikon D7100</h3>

</th></tr>

<tr>

<td>Significantly larger screen</td>

<td rowspan="2">Around 10% larger screen</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Significantly higher resolution screen</td>

<td rowspan="2">More than 30% higher resolution screen</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Much higher true resolution</td>

<td rowspan="2">Capture around 50% more detail in your photos</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Has in-camera HDR</td>

<td rowspan="2">Combines multiple exposures to capture high dynamic range</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Lower noise at high ISO</td>

<td rowspan="2">The D7100 has a slight edge (0.1 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Significantly more cross-type focus points</td>

<td rowspan="2">Grab focus in difficult situations</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Better image quality</td>

<td rowspan="2">Almost the same</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>More focus points</td>

<td rowspan="2">Set focus accurately within the frame</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Better color depth</td>

<td rowspan="2">Distinguishes 0.7 more bits of color</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Lighter</td>

<td rowspan="2">More than 10% lighter</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Slightly thinner</td>

<td rowspan="2">Almost the same</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

again , its what you what rather what is seen in these tables .... cheers !!

richard_thomas9 · April 22, 2013

It would probably be best if you rent the body and give it a try.

hans_janssen · April 22, 2013

The better body, feel and operation of a D300(s) can't be catched in numbers.

Michael R Freeman · April 22, 2013

"Why not going from D300s monster to a d600 FX ?" - prs

</blockquote>

"...because I shoot guite much birds in the fly." - jt

</blockquote>

DX does have some advantages over FX. One of them being a "built-in 1.5X teleconverter". FX is not the holy grail. ;-) :-)

pushkarrajsharma · April 22, 2013

richard is rite ..better go out and try ...

and michael >> yes i overlooked it .... i just read for a better ISO range that he mentioned

tc

cheers

Dieter Schaefer · April 22, 2013

I haven't seen a D7100 yet, but worked with a D7000 on occasion - and in my hands, it just doesn't feel half as nice

</blockquote>

The D7100 feels better than the D7000 in my hands - but still no contest to the D300/D300S. The feel of the D7000 was a deal breaker for me - when it was announced and again in the last few months when refurbished bodies became available for around $750.

the lack of buffer on the D7100 could well be a deal-breaker

</blockquote>

It's actually the main reason I am not rushing out to buy a D7100 - birds is my main field of work too. Still holding out for that elusive D400 and carrying on with a D300; but if that camera would fail, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a D7100 (and grudgingly deal with the shallow buffer).

There is no doubt the D7100 is a massively competent body

</blockquote>

Agreed - though if the D7000/D7100 indeed is the "merger" of the D80/D90 and D300/D300S line - why did Nikon have to compromise the way they did; price point is certainly one reason. But does a dedicated AF-ON button really cost that much? And adding twice the memory? For shooting that doesn't rely on sustained high fps, there is no reason not to trade a D300/D300S for a D7100.

There is no doubt the D7100 is a massively competent body

</blockquote>

Even if Nikon is trying very hard to convince you otherwise - to the point of condemning (high-end) DX to death by providing neither a fully equipped body nor filling the gaping holes in the DX lens lineup.

ShunCheung · April 22, 2013

I have been using the D7100 to photograph birds in flight (mainly hummingbirds) for 3 weeks. At this point, it would be my choice for that kind of photography, over the D4, D7000, and D300. There is no doubt that the D7100's memory buffer is shallow, but more careful shooting and using SanDisk Extreme Pro cards helps a lot. The D7100 can write 3 RAW files onto an Extreme Pro SD card. Therefore, even though the buffer may fill up quickly, you can gain it all back in a couple of seconds. In comparison, the D3/D300 can only write 1 RAW file per second onto memory cards.

Concerning the D300, I still own one (not a D300S), but I haven't used that much since late 2010 when I bought my D7000. Action photography makes it difficult for precise framing. For wildlife action, I need to leave plenty of room for crop. 12MP and the D300's mid-ISO performance is not going to cut it any more.

mike_halliwell · April 22, 2013

Even if Nikon is trying very hard to convince you otherwise - to the point of condemning (high-end) DX to death by providing neither a fully equipped body nor filling the gaping holes in the DX lens lineup.

</blockquote>

+1 Dieter

Wouter Willemse · April 22, 2013

Dieter, Nikon already managed to convince me.... got a FX body, and my D300 is actually on loan with somebody else as I was using it way way way too little.... Better to let somebody else enjoy it. Still, yes, there is plenty of life left in DX, and plenty of lenses that would make it a more rounded system, and a more attractive format to stay with - no argument there.

Since I raised the issue on the shallow buffer, good to read real-world experience from Shun, which surely beats my "of-the-specsheet" reading.... One concern less about the D7100, it seems.

mike_halliwell · April 22, 2013

One concern less about the D7100, it seems.

</blockquote>

It's still a concern for some users....I'm still waiting for a Sports DX to pair with my D700 + MB-D10....a D300S is the only choice....STILL!...and it doesn't get a very good fps with 14-bit RAW either!

I very occasionally run into the buffer (stops) of my D700's 20 14-bit RAW limit even with very fast Sandisk cards. The usual 'culprit' is a horse team-chase where teams of 4 go around a cross country course with jumps. If they string out, it's OK, but if they bunch up, I risk lock-up and missing a horse. Where is the D7100's 7 frames going to get me?

14-bit RAW for the D300S is quoted as 30 for lossless or 45 compressed....that puts the D7100's 6 or 7 to shame.

If people don't understand why anyone should ever need this fast frame rate/big buffer combo, they obviously don't need it....and the D7100 is the perfect camera for them, no question.

eric_arnold · April 22, 2013

the omission of a d400 in nikon's lineup is a major one, i'm afraid. the d300s is a PROsumer body, the d7100 and d7000 and proSUMER bodies. the d600 is proSUMER as well. i've a feeling there are many folks in this boat. essentially nikon skipped a generation and neglected to update the d300 and d700, which puts many users in a pickle. it's not really an "upgrade" if a newer camera performs worse in some respects than an older one.

ted_raper1 · April 22, 2013

Thom Hogan did a very nice D7000/D300/300s comparison in his D7000 review; I suspect much of what he says would also apply to the D7100/D300 discussion. He sort of sums it up by saying it's a better buffer/better build vs. better IQ/better noise decision, whichever floats your boat more. Me, I'm a low ISO shooter, static subjects, rather-have-a-more-robust-build kind of guy, and the newer sensor of the D7100 is not enough reason for me to sell my D300s and get a 7100. Besides, I just bought a new Fuji X-E1 that works pretty well.

So as almost always, it really depends on what you want!

owen_omeara · April 22, 2013

Jukka:

I am an ex d300 user that recently moved to a d7100 and I have no regrets. The difference in IQ is amazing. I had a bit of trouble with how it felt in my hands when I first started using it but quickly got used to it after adding the battery grip.

The shallow buffer could clearly be a problem for some users but it does not affect my work .

I have no doubt that I will contine to love it.

-Cheers

Dieter Schaefer · April 22, 2013

There are a few videos on youtube that show how "fast" the D7100 can clear the buffer - once the initial limit is reached, there is a pause of almost a second, and then the shooting continues at 3 fps. For a lot of action, that pause after the first second when the buffer is filled is problematic. What good does it do, when the shooting continues thereafter at 3 fps (which is a far cry from 6 fps that the D300 is capable of); I have not had a single instant in all my bird shooting were I filled the D300 buffer before the action was over - my "record" is a Blue Heron flyby that yielded 17 images (with 3 unusable). I wish Nikon would stop crippling their cameras to make a price point or to "protect" sales of higher end models (of which there is exactly 0 for DX). For me, the D600 may as well not exist at all, there is no way I would spend $2K on that handicapped body.

12MP and the D300's mid-ISO performance is not going to cut it any more

</blockquote>

Well, I will have to make do a while longer as there isn't a really compelling alternative - why trade one limitation for another? Though I realize that time isn't on my side - and that I will eventually get a D7100 (if a D400 doesn't appear first). But Nikon will have to wait to get money for me - my revenge for them not producing what the consumer (me) wants.

thephotophile · April 22, 2013

I recently purchased a D300s instead of a D7100 after playing with both for a few days. The D300s simply felt like more of a camera to me, direct and responsive while the D7100 was a little small, light and slower in handling. But really it was a close call and on another day I may have gone with the D7100.

In terms of image quality, I don't feel I need 24mp right now, 12 is just the right amount for me as it fills up my hard drives a little slower, ha! ;-)

Wouldn't mind getting a D400 one day, but it seems increasingly unlikely, unless Nikon have a change of heart. I am not holding my breath.

jti · April 22, 2013

Thank you for a helpfull conversation so far!

noreen · April 22, 2013

I photograph a lot of birds. My D300 is dying so I decided not to wait any longer for the hypothetical D400. I bought the D7100. I'm happy with it so far, but I can tell it's just a placeholder for me. If the D400 materializes, I will sell the D7100. If the D400 does not materialize and certain other things in my life go in a certain direction, it is very possible--probable, even--that I would sell the D7100 and all my Nikon lenses and buy a Canon 7dII, which I believe to be not merely a rumor.

You can find my comments on the D7100 (posted earlier today) here: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bWjb">How is the D7100 shaping up (new owners)?</a>

ShunCheung · April 22, 2013

There are a few videos on youtube that show how "fast" the D7100 can clear the buffer - once the initial limit is reached, there is a pause of almost a second, and then the shooting continues at 3 fps.

</blockquote>

I have tested the D7100 a number of times and never experienced that so called "pause." The way I photograph hummingbirds is that after a number of captures, the hummingbird tends to move around and sometimes behind a flower and then emerges from the other side of the flower. The few seconds when the birds is out of sight behind a flower is more than long enough for the D7100's buffer to recover. However, I sure wouldn't mind having 9, 10 fps on a continuous basis as some people have from the Canon 1DX and Nikon D4.

Recently, I added a second Extreme Pro card so that I can set up the D7100 in the backup mode and have it write the same RAW file onto both cards, just in case there is any file corruption that I have experienced a few times on the D800E (but that is uncommon). So far, after over 3500 images, I haven't run into any corrupted RAW files from the D7100 yet. Otherwise, if the two SD cards have different speeds, the slower one will determine the write speed.

To me, it is very clear that Canon and Nikon's approach is to push the FX format down to occupy the price range that was occupied by the D200/D300 before. Notice that the Canon 6D is now $1900: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=892349&is=REG&A=details&Q= I have little doubt that the D600 and its future successor will occupy that space. In the last year, Nikon has added a couple of "economy" FX zooms, namely the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR and the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S. Those are exactly there to match those sub-$2000 FX bodies. The 24-85 is very good and the 18-35 is also quite good but the extreme corners at 18mm is still a bit soft.

However, given that even the D7100 has the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module, it is silly to put the Multi-CAM 4800 on the D600. Expect Nikon to fix that when they update the D600 (and hopefully improve from the Multi-CAM 3500 on the high end).

Another thing to keep in mind is that Nikon has improved on the Multi-CAM 3500. AF on the D800 and D7100 are now better than the AF on the D3, D700, and D300. Previously, I rarely used my 500mm/f4 AF-S for birds in flight, and I had plenty of out-of-focus images with that lens on the D3 and D3S for action shots. Now I use that with the D7100 a lot.

Dieter Schaefer · April 22, 2013

Shun, here's the video

- and yes, for the 95MB/s SD card, there is no pause - the camera gets 34 RAW images in 10 seconds. Fast forward the video to 4:35 to see the RAW test on that card; JPEG is directly before that (54 JPEG in 10 seconds). I don't have the time to watch the entire video now again but believe the pause I mentioned happens with slower cards.

To me, it is very clear that Canon and Nikon's approach is to push the FX format down to occupy the price range that was occupied by the D200/D300 before.

</blockquote>

Oh the horror of imagining having actually two bodies at nearly identical price points - a bottom-of-the-barrel FX and a all tricked-out high-end DX body. I always thought choice was a good thing.

Two23 · April 22, 2013

I was a D300 user and now have a D7100. I do think the D7100 is a better camera overall. I don't shoot birds in flight much though. I have managed to "jam up" the buffer a few times, so I've ordered a Sandisk card that supposedly has a write speed of x90ms. That's the fastest I could find. I looked hard at the D600 but just didn't see what it offered me. If I were going that route and getting the FX lenses to make it work, no way I'd get the cheap zooms they're coming out with. What's the point of that? I have had thoughts of getting a D800--used, for my wedding work. However, I keep coming back to the FACT that if I bought one, I won't be making any more money than I do with the D7100. None of my customers can tell the difference, and none will pay me more because of the camera I have. I'm more than happy with the performance of the D7100.

Kent in SD

ShunCheung · April 22, 2013

Dieter, I won't even bother to watch that video. The D7100's buffer is shallow; that is well known from day 1. My experience is that using 95MB/sec cards, the D7100 can write 3 RAW files/second, and I would use compressed RAW to reduce file size. However, whether it is 12 or 14 bit makes only a small difference. What is important to me is that I have never run into any "pauses."

We should also keep in mind that memory card prices drop much much faster than DSLR prices. A card that may cost $100 today will probably be $50 a year from now. I would buy the minimum amount of memory card that you can get away with. But looking at it from another angle, a year or two from now, those "expensive" 95MB/sec cards will be very affordable.

Sign In

From D300s to D7100?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in