Jump to content

Nikon D7200 vs. Nikon D300


jlevin

Recommended Posts

I have been shooting with my Nikon D300 ever since it first appeared. I have no interest in shooting with anything but DX. Now that the

D500 has been out and widely reviewed, I have decided that it is probably not for me. My primary interests are landscapes and

occasional macro. The D500 appears to have been developed to appeal to wildlife and sports enthusiasts. It would be like buying a

mansion and only occupying two of the rooms.

 

I have now looked somewhat more carefully at the D7200, but I'm not convinced it has great advantages over my D300 other than

producing much larger prints and better ability to crop. I have never complained about image quality from my D300, and I have always

felt that it had excellent build.. So "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", or is there a reason I should consider the D7200 more carefully? I saw it at

a local Costco, and it seemed a bit small and has been described by most reviewers as a consumer camera.

 

Thanks for any input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Aside from the ability to produce larger prints and the enhanced cropping capabilities, better dynamic range would be one reason to prefer the D7200 over the D300; the D7200 bests the D300 by around 2 stops over the entire ISO range.</p>

<p>The control layout of the D7200 and the D300 are quite different and at least to me, the one of the D7200 is inferior in many aspects but does provide advantages in others (mostly those that are not specific to the consumer-type body style). The smallness of the D7200 can be an issue; my wife doesn't like it at all which is the reason she went for a D500 (upgrading from a D300) even though for most of her photographic interest the D7200 would be the better choice.</p>

<p>I also moved away from the D300 to a D7100, then D7200 and now D500. But I mostly shoot action for which the D7100 was particularly ill suited. While I don't particularly like the control layout of the D7x00 bodies, for my shooting interests, it doesn't matter all that much;l it's pretty much setting it up once and then leaving it alone. Might be quite similar in your case.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you hit the nail on the head - and then wondered where the nail went. :)</p>

<p>If you shoot landscapes or macros, you'll benefit from the extra pixels as well as the better low light performance. Build quality is absolutely fine, and you aren't too likely to subject it to extreme abuse with those two as your primary photographic subjects.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Three generations of sensor technology advances would give you much improved low light performance and updated video. But if you're primarily shooting in bright light you might not see much of a difference, except for the gain in resolution you've mentioned.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>First of all, for landscape, FX is by far superior to DX because of better wide-angle lenses. Nikon DX wide angles still need to clear the frange-to-sensor distance intended for the much larger 35mm film mirror, leading to unnecessary compromises. Back in 2007, FX was very expensive, but that hasn't been the case for a few years.</p>

<p>If one insists on DX, sensor technologies have improved drastically since Nikon introduced the D300 in 2007. If one doesn't like the handing of the D7200 and can afford the D500, might as well go for that.</p>

<p>As least to me, I wouldn't use any DSLR without dual memory cards where I can use the backup mode to save every image onto two cards. The D300S has CF + SD, but the D300 doesn't. The D300 has one memory card slot, which is CF.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dynamic range would win it for me - which, ironically, is more useful precisely in the "bright light" conditions Howard claimed would level the playing field. If you're used to shooting in conditions where you can control the lighting, there's no big deal, and the D300 is no slouch. If you don't have that control and you want to retain (for example) cloud or sky detail while being able to see something in the shadows, the dynamic range of modern sensors (at low ISO) makes this much more flexible in post-processing.<br />

<br />

See, for example, pretty much anything I've posted from my holidays in the Nikon Wednesday thread for the last few weeks (but please don't conflate the dynamic range demonstration with my lack of artistic talent). Particularly, in <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00eDE1">week 44</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00eFDX">week 47</a>, my Antelope Canyon pictures are very heavily tweaked (in DxOptics Pro, mostly). In the shots as exposed normally, the sky and light beams would be saturated white and the interior of the canyon would be completely black; it's only because I've pushed the shadows and pulled the highlights that you can see anything. The result <i>is</i> a little unnatural (depending on how much you tweak things), but there's nothing to be done about that other than have a genuine HDR display to work with - and that technology is coming. If I'd tried this on my D700, which <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D700-versus-Nikon-D300___1020_441_440">roughly matches</a> the D300 dynamic range at base ISO, I'd have nothing but noise in the shadows. The D7200, on the other hand, keeps even the D810 I used quite honest.<br />

<br />

Of course, if the ability to do that doesn't matter to you, all that is irrelevant. :-) You do have twice the number of pixels, which is nice. While different from the D300/D500/D700/D8x0 series handling, the D7x00 series interface works perfectly well and has very few compromises - it'll drive you nuts if you try to use them side by side, but as a replacement you won't miss much after a week or two. It's certainly true that the D7x00 is tiny compared with the D300/D500, though. I've handled them a few times coming from my history with a D700, D800e and D810; there's nothing wrong with the build, but they do feel like toys (because they're small and light), especially since there's usually an L-plate and a big lens on my larger body. The reduced bulk may or may not be a good thing depending on how much you travel with your camera.<br />

<br />

All I can say is that you should play with one and decide for yourself - but the more "robust" option is the D500, and you're giving up a little resolution and low-ISO performance to get the D500's benefits.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with those who've already responded that the D7200 sensor has significantly better dynamic range and low light performance than the one in the D300. There is no question about. I don't agree with Shun's argument about the superiority of FX for landscape because of better wide angle lenses. Many landscape shooters don't go extra-wide. Anyone shooting DX is of course not limited to DX lenses, and can find excellent FX lenses for Nikon down to 14mm. In any case, the OP said he is not interested in switching to FX.</p>

<p>All that said, if you're happy with the D300, keep using it. You can always change your mind. Prices on new camera bodies may rise for a time after the Christmas and post-Christmas sales are over, but they will eventually fall again, and newer sensors (and camera bodies) will continue to be developed which surpass the old ones.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone shooting DX is of course not limited to DX lenses, and can find excellent FX lenses for Nikon down to 14mm. In any case, the OP said he is not interested in switching to FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hector, if after reading my comment, the OP still doesn't want to switch to FX, I will not keep dwelling on that. However, a 14mm is a very extreme lens, but on DX, its angle of view is merely the equivalent of 21mm on FX. If one wants that kind of wide angle, which is common for landscape photography, it much easier and far more cost effective to get a 20mm lens on FX.<br>

<br>

But again, it is the OP's choice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think there are a lot of FX options that would struggle to keep up with the following kit for DX:</p>

<ul>

<li>Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8</li>

<li>Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8</li>

<li>Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8</li>

</ul>

<p>May substitute the Tokina 14-20/2 for the 11-20 if ultrawide isn't needed. Granted, large and heavy f/1.8 lenses aren't needed for landscape (but neither are larger and heavier f/2.8 ones for FX, which is what one would need to get in order to match performance).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for everyone's input. There seems to be agreement that the D7200's advantages over the D300

include a better dynamic range and much improved low light performance. While the build quality is fine, the small size of

the D7200 is may be an issue for some people. Also, Shun pointed out that the D300 does not have a backup memory

card slot. He also said out that if one doesn't like the handling (e.g. smaller size) of the D7200, the D500 is an alternative.

 

I would just like to mention that as someone with back issues, lugging around heavy FX equipment would put me in

permanent physical therapy. Hence, my need for DX equipment. Also, as far as wide angle landscape photography is

concerned, Nikon makes a 10-24mm lens, which is equivalent to 15mm on the wide side. (I personally still use the 12-

24mm). There is also the Tokina 11-20mm that Dieter Schaefer mentioned.

 

Thanks for this extremely valuable information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Although perhaps not a critical factor given your usage, in addition to the points mentioned above, the AF on the D7200 is a significant step up from the D300.<br>

I recently purchased one – my first DX body in almost 8 years – and I've been very pleasantly impressed with the handling and the quality of the files from it.<br>

C</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I would just like to mention that as someone with back issues, lugging around heavy FX equipment would put me in permanent physical therapy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jay, point well taken. You probably don't want to get a D4 or D5, but not all FX equipment is heavy. For example, I use the combo of a D750 and 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S frequently for landscape. Neither the body nor the lens is heavy. That combo is no worse than the D300 + 12-24mm/f4 AF-S you seem to be happily using.</p>

<p>If you are very sensitive to weight, the D7100 and D7200 should be good choices. The D750 is just slightly bigger. If anything, I think the D7200 is a bit too small for me. Anything smaller would be uncomfortable to use.</p>

<p>The D300, D7100, and D7200 all use the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module. The newer incarnation of that module on the D7200 is slightly improved, but they all have the basic Multi-CAM 3500 design with 15 cross-type AF points and 51 point in total. If one is looking for a major step up from that, you want the Multi-CAM 20000 on the D5 and D500.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently downsized to a D7200 after using a D700

and D800 for many years. Subjectively the D7200

has better low light ability than the D700, but not

quite up to the D800. Dynamic range is fine, and

several stops better than anything I ever got from

film (for what that's worth).

<p>

 

WRT handling; I do find the D7200 a bit slower to use since there's less direct access to some functions. The controls are also differently placed from the D700. So some of this is down to unfamiliarity with the layout. However its LiveView ability and battery life is much improved from the D700. (I'm using the D700 for comparison as being simply an FX version of the D300.)

<p>

 

I find no drawback to the DX format as far as wide-angle choice goes. I bought Tokina's ATX 11-20mm f/2.8 lens, which offers all the field of view and image quality that almost anyone could need. Anything wider than a 17mm FX equivalent needs very careful composition and choice of subject matter, and for rural landscape often ends up looking very "empty".

<p>

 

All in all I would be reasonably happy to give up my D700 in favour of the D7200. More so a D300 if I owned one. However the D700 has sentimental value greater than any trade in I might get for it. So I'm hanging on to it even though it gets rare use these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree that the D7200's version of the Multi-CAM 3500 is only going to be incrementally better than the D300's (based on my experience with a D700, D800 and D810, which had different generations of the 3500). Possibly area AF will work a little better, since it's got more processing power; I also don't remember (and failed to find out) whether the D300 has the centre f/8 focus point that the D7200 has, if you're a teleconverter fan. However, if Jay is a landscape/macro specialist, it doesn't sound as though improved autofocus is going to be top of the priority list for him. For landscape, I'd say the D810 is the best Nikon currently offers (until it's replaced, anyway) - but although it's not much bigger than a D300 (or D500), it's certainly not smaller. The D750 is a bit lighter.</p>

 

<blockquote>been described by most reviewers as a consumer camera</blockquote>

 

<p>To be clear, this is Nikon's positioning of the D7200 (which always seemed a bit odd until the D500 came out). Nikon make the distinction between "consumer" and "pro" cameras, and it's mildly relevant for some of Nikon's professional schemes. If you're not making money mostly through shooting, I don't think it's relevant (at least, from my amateur experience). There are some handling differences between the "consumer" and "pro" lines (notably mode button vs dial and AF-On vs AF lock; on some bodies also the shutter specifications), but I don't think that's formal. Nikon USA currently claims the D500 is an "enthusiast" camera, and it's certainly got an interface more in common with the D810 than the D7200. There's very little the "enthusiast" cameras can't do that the "professional" models can; to be honest, there's not <i>that</i> much the "entry-level" DSLRs can't do. Sadly, it always comes down to checking whether the features you need are there, and trying one to see whether you like the handling.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another point which may withhold you from switching to FX I the investment you already have made in DX glass like the 12-24mm DX you mentioned...<br>

Apart from that, I do not know what software u are using currently for post, but f you own a Capture-NX version ( apart from NX-D) then it might not work for newer generation camera's .<br>

The D500 has many advantages over both D7200and D300(s), but also some disadvantages like it utilizes the "new" connection method trough SnapBridge (which is not o everybody's likings ..), and it lacks the building " flash which on the D300(s) and D7200 can be used as a "Master" flash for CLS lighting.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Starting from 2012, Nikon DSLRs with the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module officially support AF with f8 lenses, i.e. the D4 (January 2012) and D800/D800E (February 2012), followed by the 2013 D7100. In other words, the ones before 2012, namely the entire D3 family, D700, and D300 family are not officially AF compatible with f8 lenses, although it may work under good lighting conditions with subjects having a lot of contrast.</p>

<p>In any case, since the OP is mainly into landscape photography and macro, I am sure the "old" Multi-CAM 3500 will work fine.</p>

<p>Other advantage of the newer cameras include a better LCD on the back. The one on the D500 (and D750) can swivel, which maybe an advantage for landscape work. Battery technology has also improved with the EN-EL15.</p>

<p>I still have a D300, but I haven't used it much ever since I bought the D7000 in late 2010.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for clarifying, Shun. :-) The problem for trying to look for something that's not in the manual is that it's not in the manual!<br />

<br />

I'd meant to say: for "occasional" macro, there's something to be said for pixel density (which means DX unless any D810 successor gets silly pixel counts) - but then there's also something to be said for a tilt screen. You'll be a step up from the D300 anyway.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>About 6 years ago, I posted an image of a D300 and D7000 side by side to this thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XmSn</p>

<p>It should be quite obvious that the D7000 is smaller. The D7000, D7100, and D7200 are all similar in size. The latter two use the same model of vertical grip. Nikon has gradually improved the ergonomics in the D7000 series, but at least IMO, the D750 and D500 have the best ergonomics without the optional vertical grip. Their built-in grip (not the optional external one) is deep and comfortable to hold.</p>

<p>It is best to visit a store and hold the camera in your hand to see whether you are comfortable with it. As the OP pointed out in the opening post, the D7200 is available at Costco.</p>

 

<center>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00X/00Xn7x-308145584.jpg" alt="" /></p>

</center>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I switched from a D300 to a D7100 this year. The 7100 is definitely smaller in my hand than the 300, and is less comfortable to use with long, heavy lenses. A battery grip fixed that right up. I far prefer the images from the 7100. I use Dieter's proposed lens combo from above - the Tokina 11-20 and the two Sigma Art zooms, along with a Nikkor 50/1.8G for a very light short tele. It's pretty much the rig of my dreams.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jay,<br>

I carefully considered what to get to replace my D300/D700 pair. I like having both DX and FX, and those two shared memory cards, battery/charger, and grips which is very convenient, and the sensors were approximately the same pixel count..<br>

I got a D7200 and D750 to replace them as those two share memory cards and battery/charger. Unfortunately not the grip. The pixel count on the sensors is nearly identical.<br>

I considered the D500, but my interest is primarily landscape/wildlife and people - things that aren't moving real fast, so the D500 isn't really the right camera for my needs.</p>

<p>As far as the size of the D7200, though it is smaller than the D300 it fits my hand as well or better; that is why I said it doesn't feel noticeably smaller in my hand. The D750 feels more similar to the D300 or D700.<br>

I really wanted a "D400" that shared the D750's size and grip. :<</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...