$1200--used D300s or D7000??

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by john_watson, Sep 16, 2010.

  1. I have a D90 and the urge ( if not the need) to upgrade.
    I am attracted to a more robust body, since I travel often in rough conditions--and ability to shoot in low light. Better AF would also be a plus.
    I can buy a lightly used D300s for the same price as the new D7000.
    I have a good lens assortment
    - 18-105, 70-300
    - 50mm 1.8
    - Tokina 12-24
    Which would you choose and why?
    Thanks in advance
    John
     
  2. Since you have several DX format lenses, you would be better off with the D300s IMHO...
     
  3. The D300s is larger and heavier. The D7000 is better or equal in practically every other area, and it's new. Looks like a no-brainer to me.
     
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The OP is talking about the new D7000, not the FX-format D700.
    I would wait for the D7000 to become available and read some initial tests from reliable sources. My guess is that the D7000 will have an impact on the D300S' value, both new and used. In other words, given how strong the D7000's specs are, Nikon will have to upgrade the D300S fairly soon, perhaps in early 2011.
     
  5. D7000, assuming its performance matches its specs. (Apparently) just as rugged, but lighter and more compact, newer design, higher ISO, presumably somewhat higher resolution. I happen to prefer SD cards, and you already have those for your D90. And it's always nicer to purchase a new camera, with the warranty.
    But I would not make any decision between those two until some reviews are out and you can try it in your own hands.
     
  6. Your right, my bad...I misread the D7000 as a D700...
     
  7. Do you need the faster frame rate? If so... D300. If not, wait and see.
    That said, I'm a D90 owner myself, and have no plans to upgrade. I can shoot in low light with my lenses and a D90 just fine thanks. You're only probably going to get one more stop of really use-able ISO out of the D7000.
    if I WAS buying today, I'd wait for a 7000.
     
  8. It's hard to say, without any reviews of the D7000, so I can only speak in general terms.
    If you don't have a particular need for the D300s features, I see little incentive to go from a D90 to a D300s. They're very similar, but the D300s adds metering with manual lenses (you don't seem to have any of these), faster frame rate and better AF for shooting action, and a more robust (and larger and heavier) body.
    But a D7000 also adds metering with manual focus lenses, upgrades the body robustness and has AF and frame rate that fall between the D90 and D300s. For me, the question would be, doen it give substantial image quality gains over the D90 and D300s? From the stats and info Nikon gives, it looks like the answer is likely to be yes, but wait and see. There are plenty of web writers who will pick one up and comment on it as soon as it becomes available and you'll be able to try it in stores.
     
  9. I've decided to keep my D300 and wait for the D400 (or whatever name it will have). Actually I do it for only one single reason. I have become dependent on the middle button of the 4-way selector to give me one-click instantaneous image review at 100%, positioned at the focus point used. As far as I can tell at the moment, this is the only thing that the D300 and all other professional models can do, that the D7000 as top of the consumer line can't. Everything else is there, manual lenses, auto-focus fine-tuning, the virtual horizon, the 100% viewfinder, everything, and the image quality is better as well. Still, I want that damn button to act as 100% magnifier, I am used to it and it would drive me mad not to have it.

    From a D90 to the D300s you would gain much comfort and build quality, but the image quality would be the same. Upgrading to the D7000 should give you almost all of that comfort and quality plus bigger, better images. It should begin to be available in a month or so. At the moment we can only speculate when the D400 will come, but I agree, it should better be soon, as the D7000 severely hurts the D300(s). Still, the only thing I could gain is image quality, thus I have no problem waiting. After all, the D300 is still a fantastic camera.
     
  10. The D300s has already come down in the last week or so by $200 - $300 at some stores in Canada. I'm not sure if it's because they had advance notice of the D7000, but it is interesting. It remains to be seen if they drop the price further, especially if a 300s replacement is in the works. The dillemma for many, including myself, will be whether to buy the 300s or the 7000....or, just hold onto my D90 which is still a great camera.
     
  11. It's all personal preference. I have 2 D300s and I have no plans on upgrading. I don't print large enough to need the 16 MP, (although it would help with cropping), and I am now so used to the "pro" features like an AF-ON button and switches that control features rather than menu settings, that I don't think I could downgrade in body to get the additional features inside the camera.
    If, (or when), I do upgrade, it'll be to either another "pro" DX camera, (whatever replaces the D300s), or it will be to the newest FX format, D700 replacement.
    If I had a D90, I would keep it and wait. I don't know if you'll see as many used D300s on the market as many people are guessing. Used D90s, yes, there will be a plethora of them. Keep your D90 if it isn't holding you back photographically and wait until you NEED to upgrade. By that time the D7100 may have arrived along with a replacement for the D300s and D700.
     
  12. this new camera looks really nice -- but don't they all?
    be serious. what's driving your impulse to upgrade? you already have a very nice camera. what can't you do that an upgrade will permit?
    i'm tempted as well, but i know that in a few months they'll throw up something else even more desirable -- and there you go again!
    so let it rest. if, in six months time, you still feel the same way, you won't have lost anything, but you might gain even better choices! (in the meantime, start saving your $$$).
     
  13. I happen to be in a similar dilemma. I'll be soon upgrading my D80 and I'm now looking at the D300(S) (used) and the D7000. More megapixels don't count that much to me and it will be an outdoors camera so high ISO is not high on my list, though it's a nice-to-have. Same with video.
    The D7000 spec sheet reads like an enthusiast's dream but I've owned Nikon pro bodies and the features Richard mentions are hard habits to break. I guess it will come down to price, If I can't find an affordable, well cared, used D300S I'll go with the D7000.
     
  14. another thing to consider is: would u need the d300s's ability to go up to 8fps with the additional battery pack grip? for sports and fast-action i think the d300s would still be more appropriate. but if u are doing more video and require 1080p video capture with automatic focus the d7000 would be more appropriate.
     
  15. Thanks to all of you for some great perspectives.
    One of the things that drives me is to have a more robust and better sealed body--We travel a lot to out of the way places and it would give me peace of mind.I wonder if the D7000 will be as well sealed and durable as the D300s?
    It is fascinating how the addition of a model triggers rebates in the entire lineup--Adorama now has some attractive rebates on D300s and D90.
     
  16. If you need mirror lockup, more buttons, and better weather sealing, D300s. If you need HD video and more pixels, D7000.
    Does the D300s have interval shooting built in? That's another consideration.
     
  17. I have the same question. I just read a review saying that two points indicating D7000 is a good generation: 1, AI level supports AI lens; 2, Mirror-up - which appeared in D300 level camera.
    I have a D200 so this post can seriously helps me as well. Please give some comments!
     
  18. If I had to choose between a new D7000 or a used D300s I would go with the D7000 since it's lighter and has ISO 100. For me the ISO 100 makes the D7000 better then a basket full of D300s. It's a required function for my bag.
     
  19. Full disclosure: I have a D70s, D200, and D700. I skipped the D300 series because I didn't think the joice was worth the squeeze in terms of cost over my D200. I want to keep a DX camera, preferably one with better low-light and high ISO performance than the D300/300s. i've been waiting form the D400, but the D7000 looks like it'll meet my needs for less dough, depending on the outcome of a tech question on auto-exposure bracketing (AEB) that I sent today. It's in Nikon's court at the moment...should hear the straight skinny tomorrow via email.
    Unless you must have the D300s' frame rate, a proper onboard PC flash sync socket, a 10-pin remote plug, or more extensive auto-exposure bracketing, I'd per-order a D7000 ASAP. Nikon hasn't had a 'problem' DSLR since the D70 'BGLOD' - the 'blinking green light of death', which Nikon fixed for free. As noted above, you'd get a new-camera warranty as well as superior video capability, although video is a non-issue for me personally. The D7000 even has mirror lockup! It'll be almost like a lighter D200 with better weather sealing, toughness, a worthwhile jump in resolution, and much improved low-light/high ISO IQ for a lot less money than a new D300s or more particularly its eventual replacement.
    I believe the D7000 will be a very brisk seller during the holiday season, and maybe hard to keep in stock. I'm waiting for an answer from Nikon tech support about the AE bracketing, and depending on the answer, may pre-order one tomorrow. I'd rather be at the front of the line than take a chance and maybe run into an out-of-stock situation if I wait, as recently happened to me with the TC-20E III, and some other people with certain lenses. If all goes well, maybe they'll replace Ashton Kutcher in the commercials...maybe Ty Pennington would be good there, or Larry the Cable Guy.
     
  20. At the beginning of this year I upgraded from D50 to a D300. My reasoning was that I need higher ISO and fps for shooting sports and wildlife. It didn't take me long however to realize that overall "upgrading" did not appreciably increase the IQ of my photography. After that reality set in I began to resent the weight and cumbersome interface of of the D300. On many occasions I grabbed my old stodgy Olympus C5050--not only because it was featherweight in comparison but also because the sharp optics of that remarkable 1.8 lens could and often put my DSLR output to shame. (but oh yes, there was the shutter lag...but I digress). My point is that I have concluded that for me, in order to become immune to the Nikon Acquisition Syndrome, one had to be completely honest with themselves. For me, I now realize that it wasn't higher ISO or fps that I "really" needed...(although those were the impressive specifications that seduced me)....but really I need a camera that fits both my shooting style AND my lifestyle. Truth is, though I'm an old SLR purist at heart, I'd been damn happy with video capability rather than drag my heavy D300 AND my Sony camcorder or even that little FLIP HD video thingy to my child's horse show or soccer game. When faced with lugging around all of these image capturing gadgets, I have found myself fantasizing about a 4/3 or EVIL systems that are lighter weight, speedy and offer very solid IQ. Heck, even the Pentax Optio line has me thinking of getting out of the Nikon racket altogether. But now comes along the D7000. If I had only waited, it seems like this model could strike the right balance for me....One obvious advantage of sticking with Nikon is that I wouldn't have to bail out out on my 2+ grand of lenses and accessories. The question now is, should I throw my D300 on the auction block ASAP, before its value depreciates off a cliff, OR wait for more 3rd party reviews on the D7000 to be written before giving up on my 'neck brick'. P.S. my beloved D50 is still packed away...I never could bring myself to sell it...I thought that maybe one day, one of my kids would be interested in it....at this rate, it might just be me that resurrects it first. ;-)
     
  21. Chase Jarvis had on his blog that the D7000 looks to be one stop better than the D90 in ISO performance. If true that gives you good results at 3200 and usable up to 6400. Whereas now with the D90 (and D300), 3200 is as far as you want to go. 6400 is pretty nasty. Although if you shoot low-light sports and action, the AF system on the D300s is going to be slightly better. I'm in the same boat as you, I have a D5000 looking to upgrade and I think the 7000 is the winner for me. Better high ISO performance and video autofocus put it over the top.
     
  22. I've decided to pre-order a D7000 and, while I wait, keep my eyes open for a great deal on a D300s. Not a real commitment, because you can cancel pre-order any time.
    Thanks for all the helpful comments
     
  23. i think stick to d300s , d7000 feels good however the quality is not proven yet ... d300(s) is the best pro-sumer camera and should be able to give u accurate results without any worry ..
    go for it . .
     
  24. Here's another thing to think about.
    I purchased my first D300s when Nikon had their rebate with lenses. Seems like that rebate is now back. My second D300s I purchased less than a month ago from a friend "downgrading" to a D90. I bought it from him for $1100 US. The camera has less than 1500 actuations, original box, manuals, and all the other garbage Nikon packages with their cameras.
    I will re-iterate that I will not be purchasing a D7000. And after reading all the specs and Nikon literature, here's my thoughts:
    The D90 will be the last "pro-sumer" camera Nikon makes with a two-digit designation. Why? Well, Nikon has used up D40, D60, D70, D80, D90...I doubt they'll be going to a D30 anytime soon. Add to that the fact that Nikon's lowest end consumer model is the D3000 and that they have now released the D3100, which surpasses not only the D3000, but the D5000 as well. With the new D7000 replacing the D90, I believe we are seeing Nikon's new nomenclature at work.
    D3xxx = Entry Level. Current models are the D3000 and D3100
    D5xxx = Step up from entry level if not discontinued. My guess is that the D90 replacement will fill this void. The D7000 seems like it is between the D90 and D300s in both features and price point, so likely there
    D7xxx = High end consumer/pro-sumer, replacing and surpassing the Dxx series, which ends with the D90. The D7000 is placed between the D90 and the D300s. Likely this is a new level of camera in the Nikon family.
    D3xx = Pro/Prosumer DX format...perhaps the D300s replacement will be the D310
    D7xx = Pro/Prosumer FX format...perhaps the D700 replacement will be the D710
    Dx = Flagship Pro-level with built in grip. Currently on the D3/x/s Is the D4 next??
    Of course this is all the workings in my head and nothing actually from Nikon. So, if you're upgrading from a D40/x, D50, D60, D70/s, D80, D3000, or D5000, I believe that the D7000 would be a worthwhile upgrade. It is less obvious when looking at the D90 vs the D7000 due to price, but the D7000 would be a substantial upgrade if you shoot video or low light.
     
  25. If you want durable, faster AF and better low light, I'd actually start by replacing the 18-105VR for something more durable and faster... The 18-105VR has great optics for the price, and for casual use I think it will hold up fine, but for rough use I think the D90 might be a lot more durabe than the cheaper lenses (the 50 f/1.8 is certainly also no star in the build quality department).
     
  26. I hear a lot about durability of plastic mount lenses, but this could be a feature. Consider:
    The Nikon part dept will sell you a backup mount ring for any of the plastic mount lenses (and there are some stores that also sell them). I'm not really decided on which route is best - to only use metal mount lenses, or to consider the plastic mount a "breakaway" part and a safety feature. If I were to drop my camera in such a way that it would break off the plastic mount, wouldn't it be preferable to break the $20 part that can be replaced with a screwdriver rather that bend a part in the lens or camera that's much more expensive and tightly integrated into the construction?
    That said, an f/3.5-5.6 lens is not the best thing for demanding AF situations.
     
  27. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Andrew, we have pointed out quite a few times that the problem with plastic-mount Nikon lenses is not necessarily the mount itself. As reported by Bjorn Rorslett, Nikon also uses adhesive tape to hold things together inside some of those lenses. If you drop those lenses serious enough to break the mount, most likely there are other more serious damages inside. We have read several cases in this forum that those lenses become total losses because they are fairly cheap so that you are better off replacing them rather than repairing them.
    Moreover, the lens mount is a delicate area. If you tighten one side too much or the mount is slightly bent, you may have difficulty achieving uniform sharpness across the frame. That was exactly what happened to my 17-55mm/f2.8 DX when it fell straight down inside a padded camera bag. There was no apparent damage from the outside, but one side of my images from it became out of focus. Any time you unscrew the mount, the lens should be caliberated professionally.
    Richard, once you see high-ISO results from the D7000, you might change your mind about the D300S. :) You can always give the old camera to your daughter, although she might not be into photography yet.
     

Share This Page