Would you consider the D7000 an upgrade from the D300s?

<p>I'm been shooting my son's basketball games for the past month with my trusty D700 set to iso 3200 - 4000 and get clean images with a little noise in the shadows. Last weekend I tried the D300s with a 24 f/1.8 for near the baseline under the net and got some good images but they were very noisy compared to the D700. So my question is, is the D7000 an upgrade? Is the iso 3200 and higher better than the D300s? The 1080p video is a plus and the higher 16mp is another plus but not enough to buy one until I find out about high iso performance before pulling out the wallet.</p>

<p>The D7000 is a newer camera and therefore has some newer technology than the D300S; i.e. better sensor, a little more pixel (interestingly, 16MP is a lot more demanding on lenses than 12MP), better low-light capability, far better video capability.</p>

<p>But the D7000 is also a lower-grade camera (i.e. more consumer oriented) so that its construction is not as robust and its AF is half a step behind the AF on the D300S; the D7000's controls are similar to those on consumer DSLRs. The D300S also has faster frame rate with the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries.</p>

<p>The D7000 is definitely not a direct replacement/upgrade for the D300S, but it serves a lot of the same purposes, and that is why my main DX-format camera has been the D7000 since it was introduced in late 2010.</p>

<p>I own both cameras and both have served me well. Fo all intents and purposes I shoot only in natural light and I prefer the d7000 with regard to noise and general image quality. The build of the d300s is more robust as Shun noted but I seldom use it. I personally have had no trouble with the autofocus on the d7000 as some have reported.</p>

<p>I second Owen. I have a D300 and a D7000. The 7000 is better all around but I am glad I have the 300 as a back up and second body. As for the build, I do not notice the difference when shooting. The 300 might make a better club if necessary. </p>

<p>The ISO performance of the D7000 may not be that much different than the D700 you already have. What's making you consider another camera as opposed to sticking with the D700? Do you need the extra reach with DX?</p>

<p>The D7000, while I've never owned one, is a great camera with newer technology as others have stated. But it is not as robust as the D300s with regard to build, auto-focus system, and some other things. If you are accustomed to the focus system of the D700, the D7000 may disappoint. Both cameras have dual card slots, which is something the D700 doesn't have.</p>

<p>I say give it a try and one of your son's games. As far as image quality goes, I doubt you'll be disappointed, but it does have a different feel when shooting to many people (especially if you are used to the D700 body-type).</p>

<p>When I replaced my D70s bodies with two D300s bodies, I looked at the D7000, but I immediately stopped when I saw that it had the preset dial on the top left, because with my D70s, I often nudged that dial inadvertently just at the wrong time and missed shots (I shoot philharmonic concerts). I also wanted the fast AF and frame rate of the D300s, and it's a couple steps up in ISO capability from the D70s. I shoot 1600 all the time.</p>

<p>>>>16MP is a lot more demanding on lenses than 12MP<<<<br>

 

 

Shun, would shooting at a lower MP than the 16MP reduce that phenomenon or is it a hardware issue with global effect?</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. I'm not replacing the D700 I'm looking for a dx body that has good high iso performance. The idea is to use the D700 with a 24 or 50 prime near the bb net and use the second body with a longer lens. ISO 3200 is very clean with the D700. I need a dx body that is also clean at high iso .</p>

<p>For me, the D7000 could replace the D300 without much hesitation.<br />I rarely need fast AF. Control buttons (<D300) might be an issue. Build quality will be alright. SD cards.. <em>mmm</em>.<br />Important are: Good sensor (>D300), compatibility with old lenses, good viewfinder.<br />So again: yes.<br /><br />But I would (again) without much hesitation buy another (second hand) D300, for most photographic purposes!</p>

<p>mark, it's kind of a lateral move, with trade-offs on both sides. the d7000 would be better at ISO 3200, but you'd sacrifice some ergonomics as well as AF performance. bottom line is that the d300s is far better suited for sports. your best bet may be a lightly-used d700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>>>>16MP is a lot more demanding on lenses than 12MP<<<<br /> Shun, would shooting at a lower MP than the 16MP reduce that phenomenon or is it a hardware issue with global effect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I only shoot RAW.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 and a D700. I find the AF module on the D700 (which I think the D300s shares) to be way way better than the D7000. If you shoot basketball, the D7000 will just seem substandard and you'll get less keepers. Its a nice camera, but the AF is my main issue with it. I find this when shooting models in the studio and when shooting running road races. If you have a D700 and a D300s I would just keep those two cameras until an obvious replacement for either the D700 or D300s comes along. Till then save your $$$ unless you have a compelling reason to upgrade.</p>

<p>+1 for what Stephen Doldric said. I have both cameras as well. The AF in the D700 is much better for the OP's purpose. DR, noise, and resolution, for real-world practical purposes, is a wash. The frame rate is almost a wash between a D700 and D7000. The viewfinder of the D700 is definitely bigger and brighter. At the ISOs mentioned, the D7000 will also generate "...a little noise in the shadows". IMO, for the OP's purpose, getting a D7000 would <em>not</em> be an upgrade unless video is a real concern. Obviously, any DSLR with video bests a D700 in that regard.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>>>>16MP is a lot more demanding on lenses than 12MP<<<<br /> Shun, would shooting at a lower MP than the 16MP reduce that phenomenon or is it a hardware issue with global effect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a physics (optics) issue. It's possible for a sensor to out-resolve a lens. As sensor resolution increases, lenses that are less good optically will show their flaws and weaknesses, especially when images are heavily cropped. The higher the resolution, the more important good glass becomes. With lesser lenses, the advantages of increased sensor resolution are lost.</p>

<p>If one would shoot jpg at less than 16mp, any resolution advantage of the D7000 over the OP's existing D700 is lost. It is not possible to shoot RAW at reduced resolution with a D7000.</p>

<p>Whoops...it double posted.</p>