150 grams

<p>I took a drive to a BestBuy that stocked a lot more cameras than one close to me. ( about 80 miles, one way ) I got to play with a D300s and well, they didn't have a display model of a D7000 and they didn't want to open a sealed box, so a D90 had to stand in as an example. What I wanted to learn is how these cameras felt, with some of my old lenses on them. I drug along my old 300mm f4.5 AIS, as that would be my current heaviest lens.</p>

<p>To my surprise, the D300s didn't feel that bad, compared to my F4. So, I tried the D90, which is 70 grams lighter than the D7000, which is 150 grams lighter than the D300s. Now, here is the fly in the ointment. They let me try the D90, and to be able to mound a lens, they had to take the tethered security base off, which covers the lens release AND it fits up in the battery compartment, which meant that the body I had was missing the battery. The D90 is exactly the same dimensions, and that lens really felt more front heavy on the stripped D90. I know it's not a fair comparison, with the missing battery, but does the D7000 feel less balanced with heavier lenses than the D300 series ? I hope some of the folks who have worked with both can chime in. Is that 150 grams enough to change this feel ?</p>

<p>I also found that the D90 ( D7000 surrogate ) did feel cramped. I found my right thumb wanted to rest on the rear LCD screen , not on any button. Of course, my F4 has nothing to smudge on the film door, so this could be an adjustment I would have to make for ANY DSLR.</p>

<p>p.s. I was surprised that this Best Buy ( East Pasadena ) even had a D700 on the shelf, and quite a few lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>does the D7000 feel less balanced with heavier lenses than the D300 series ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the obvious answer is yes, according to the laws of physics. you can, however, add a grip to the d7000 to counterbalance it.</p>

 

<p>I was surprised, because the mass was not centered lower, on the d300, as far as I know, just less of it, in the D7000. If I get a grip, then the D7000 costs about as much as the D300s. I think I'd rather have the D300s.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I get a grip, then the D7000 costs about as much as the D300s. I think I'd rather have the D300s.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would suggest that you think it though first, as we have discussed over and over, in a lot of ways the D7000 is better than the D300S. For example, this recent thread has plenty of information: <a href="00Y9Gj">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Y9Gj</a></p>

<p>If for whatever reason you don't like the D7000, be its small size, AF capability, etc., I don't think it is a good idea to buy a D300S at this point. Its technology is approaching 4 years old and it is very much expected that it'll soon be replaced. In that case you might as well wait till the coming summer and see what Nikon has to announce.</p>

<p>I'd like to have a smaller camera for travel/street/docu... but from a different point of view, the best size of camera for my hands is given by F100 and D300. Even D700 is a little bit bigger than I like but I can handle it. But I do not see me having my main camera something like D90 or D7000, just because I loose the pleasure to operate and to feel the right balance with my most used lenses that are primes between 20mm and 300mm/f4.</p>

<p>Just about any camera body will benefit from a grip when using a larger/heavier lens (at least to me). The D40 is quite small but I found it well balanced and comfortable to use even with the 70-200mm when I used it with a grip. You really need to try both cameras with your lens to know for sure which you like better. </p>

<p>Elliot,</p>

<p>That was the goal of the trip. To try them both out. The D90 was as close as they would let me touch. As I mentioned, the D300 felt a little more familiar and the D90 did feel small. The grip would change the weight and balance of the camera, but I don't think it would change the feel of the button placement. I would like to find a shop that has both AND a grip for the D7000, but Finding a place with both the D7000 and D300s took an 80 mile trip.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>Yeah. I know. The D300 series is old, but what will the D400 or what ever sell for ? $1800 ? That's what the D300 started at. Maybe it comes in at $2000 with the more expensive sensor. That's a LOT for a consumer electronics item that will be " old " four years from now. At least in my mind. That makes spending that kind of money more difficult. Basically $500 a year, until the NEXT thing comes along that will make mine feel old.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, you seem to have been hand-holding your Ai-s 300/4.5 (non-IF?) lens with your F4. However, the lens will be equivalent of 450mm on any of the candidates you are thinking aoubt.</p>

<p>So, you would have to use your 300mm/DSLR combo more often on the tripod by mounting the combo using the tripod collar on the lens, which would largely solve your problem, ironically.</p>

<p>Akira makes a very important point!</p>

<p>John, I paid $1800 for my D300 in November, 2007. If I can sell that for $800 after 4 years, that is $250 a year. IMO that is not bad at all. I used to pay for camera body depreciation in addition to a lot lot more on film and processing. I wouldn't buy a D300 now in 2011 because I know that I am a good enough photographer so that I can certainly take advantage of newer technolgy. To me, photo opportunities are too important to waste them on poor cameras and lenses.</p>

<p>The D7000's size and control placement are very similar to those on the D90, but the D7000 is heavier due to more metal parts inside. I like the D7000 because it is smaller, and it balances fine with my 500mm/f4 AF-S on a tripod. However, whether a smaller camer fits well in your hands is entirely up to you to decide.</p>

<p>I bought my D2X, D300, and D7000 all without ever seeing one before. After using Nikon for 34 years, I am confident with their cameras. Sometimes thinking too much is not exactly helpful.</p><div></div>

<p>Just a tidbit of CONFIRMED information for everyone.</p>

<p>Nikon is holding a press conference on Wednesday, Feb 9...if you're on the fence now, wait until the press conference to determine your next move. AFAIK, the Coolpix lineup is getting a few new cameras, but you never know what's going to be announced.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>The resale aspect is something I didn't think about, but I probably should. I usually buy things and keep them until they have little value remaining. The cars I drive are 15 years, 20 years, and if I ever finish the project, 45 years old.</p>

<p>"I bought my D2X, D300, and D7000 all without ever seeing one before."</p>

<p>I can't spend $5000, $1800, or even $1200 without seeing them. We obviously have very different budgets.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Akira,</p>

<p>What I use my 300mm for is often moving things. Sometimes moving rather quickly. A tripod would not work well for that purpose. However, simply putting it on a DX camera won't make it any more difficult to steady. It's got the same mass.</p>

<p>In any rate, I brought that lens as the "worst case scenario". I wanted to know how it might feel with a heavy lens. Testing it with a light one would not show much.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What does "balance" even mean? The camera and lens combination have a center of gravity somewhere. What difference does it make where it is?</p>

<p>If you are comfortable shooting with the F4, I'd go for the D300s. Telling someone not to buy a D300s is very bizarre. It is an excellent camera, it was when it was introduced, and it continues to be today. The value of a camera is determined by the user, not the level of technology in some newer smaller body. I had a D80 before I got my D300. I was happy with the D80 for the most part, but the metering was junk. The D7000 has similar metering to the D80, it isn't the same level as the D300. Also, the D300 has a larger memory buffer than the D7000, so if you shoot RAW files in quick succession, the D7000 will bog down on you and you'll have to wait for it. The D300 also has more AF focal points and higher performance AF speed. </p>

<p>This bizarre assumption by some on this board that as soon as a newer tech camera is released, suddenly the value or performance of older "good" camera bodies is lessened is something I just don't agree with. The D300/300s continues to this day to be a superb camera body, with good ergonomics and superb image quality. My D300 has the same superb image quality today as it did in November, 2007 when I bought it new. And it will continue to have that same image quality 5 years from now.</p>

<p>For me, ergonomics are a big deal. I don't care how good the high ISO performance of a camera is if I don't like the way it feels in my hand.</p>

<p>dave, have you ever even held a d7000? just curious since you seem to hate the thing.</p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>The D90 really required more effort to hold the lens up, than the D300s did. I could see my hand getting tired or not being as easy to hold the lens steady because the balance just felt a lot more forward. I know it wasn't fair, because of the lack of batteries in the D90 and I should find a D7000 with batteries installed, somewhere. A lot of people say the F4 is too heavy, but the extra mass balances well with some longer lenses. For instance, if I put my 300mm on, and hold the lens on the tripod collar, it will balance with a finger on the front edge of it. That's a comfortable spot to rest the camera in my hand. Since I'm coming from that , maybe the modern stuff and how it balances with my old lenses is more noticeable. If I was in a studio and on a tripod most of the time, it wouldn't matter. Maybe the simplest way to phrase it, was that I liked the way the D300s felt, in my hand, better than the D90. There was a little bit more room to the left of the lens, for the palm of my left hand as well. </p>

 

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>I understand posters desire to steer me from old stuff, if it's replacement is just about to come out. Often we read people's laments that the new camera was announced right AFTER they plunked down the cash for the old one. I think we're all pretty sure that Nikon WILL release the next camera this year. Spring or Fall is the only question. Given the D7000 performance, we can only assume that the next D300 body will up the ante even more. The question will be, just how MUCH it will cost. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that price is a concern to me. I can't think of a single thing I own, that cost over $1000 that wasn't a car or my house. My wants in a camera are making me look above my comfort level. I don't NEED it for anything other than a hobby. Since I know that, spending $1200, $1400, or higher creates a bit of an internal struggle. Getting a "deal" on the camera would help that. </p>

<p>I think I can predict that the next body will fall between the D7000 price point, and the D700 price. I don't know if there will be TWO bodies in there. Will there be a D90 replacement and a D300 replacement ? I suspect the D400 will be in the $1800 - $2000 range. I think that's too rich for my blood, as they say. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, many believe the D7000 to be the D90 replacement, despite what Nikon says. I suspect the D300s replacement to cost at least $1799 initially.<br>

Javier, yes I have taken a look at the D7000. It is a good camera for D90 users to step up to. But it is not an upgrade from the D300 series, rather I see it as a downgrade. Just as the new BMW 3 series is not an upgrade for the 5 series owner, despite its higher performance, etc. They are two different model series, just as the D300 is in a different bracket than the D7000, and are marketed toward two different types of users, the pro (D300) and the advanced amateur (D7000). Only you can decide which camp you are in. When I shoot for pay, I need speed (I'm usually at an event, wedding, or the like), so the D300 suits me better than the D7000 would.<br>

I bought the Nikon P7000 for a smaller, lighter travel camera to supplant the D300. And so far it has proven to be fantastic for such a little camera.</p>

<p>dave, i understand you taken a look at one, but have you shot with one? </p>

<p>John, since Best Buy accepts returns and does not charge restocking fees, why not by the camera and try it out? If you don't like it you can return it. It is worth the trip back to Best Buy to find out. Frankly, once you use the camera, I doubt that you would ever consider returning it.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that while a grip add a very small amount of weight to any camera you add it to, they are usually quite light in weight. And it is removable if there are times you don't want to use it.</p>

<p><em>"If I get a grip, then the D7000 costs about as much as the D300s. I think I'd rather have the D300s." </em>I would rather have the D7000 with a grip than the D300(s) without. And if you are using larger lenses, a grip, at least for me, is mandatory regardless of the body.</p>

<p>And while you may not be comfortable using a tripod, a monopod may be a viable solution for you.</p>

<p>As far as the getting used to the position of the buttons and dials - like anything new, it takes a short time to get used to where everything is, but you will quickly and easily get familiar with everything. Nikon cameras, especially their newer ones, are very similar to each other in both physical characteristics especially in their menus. The placement of the button and controls on the D7000 is well thought out. I have no trouble going from my other body to it.</p>

<p>@ Dave - I disagree with your comments regarding the target markets of the D300 and D7000. Why would an advanced amateur need dual memory card slots?</p>

<p><em>"When I shoot for pay, I need speed"</em> In what area do you think the D7000 is slow or slower compared to the D300(s)? I am finding that the D7000 keeps up with my D3 in almost every way...</p>

<p><em>"This bizarre assumption .... is something I just don't agree with"</em> Me too, but in the case of the D7000 and for the first time, I agree fully with the comments being made. The D7000 is nothing short of amazing! Keep in mind that almost all the technology in a camera body from just a handful of years ago that cost $5000 is, for the most part, now available in a small, compact body costing just $1200.</p>

<p><em>"I can't spend $5000, $1800, or even $1200 without seeing them. We obviously have very different budgets." </em>Buying a camera without seeing it has nothing to do with budgets. Its about smarts. All the major camera stores and chains accept returns without restocking fees. Because of the lack of good camera stores in my area, I have been forced to buy all my gear (except my D70 years ago) sight unseen. But I always bought knowing I could return the camera if I didn't like it.</p>

<p>Frankly, I doubt that any Nikon camera owner who really gives the D7000 a fair trial will be disappointed with it in any [major] way. Certainly not with image quality or speed. My only beef... lack of a shutter/aperture lock which I use almost 100% of the time on my D3.</p>

<p>And finally...<br /> <em>"The cars I drive are 15 years, 20 years, and if I ever finish the project, 45 years old.</em>" While in general I agree and have practiced this philosophy, the advances in safety the auto makers have made in the past few years make newer cars very attractive and in my opinion necessary. Obviously cameras do not have airbags, and a D40 will take as good a picture as a D3 in good light, but there are specific reasons that make upgrades appealing. And worth doing. The D7000 has it all!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I bought my D2X, D300, and D7000 all without ever seeing one before."<br>

I can't spend $5000, $1800, or even $1200 without seeing them. We obviously have very different budgets.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, no offense, I am willing to spend money on photo equipment because photography is very important to me. That is obvious.</p>

<p>However, I am afraid that you are thinking way too much. You have seen the D300S and you have seen the D90. The D7000 is merely a cross between them with the D90's size and controls, but its constructions and features more at the D300S' level plus plenty of technological updates. If somehow you cannot decide, even if you could borrow my D7000 for a week, you will still not be able to decide.</p>

<p>It is very simple: are you happy with the size and controls of a DSLR that is similar to the D90? If so, the D7000 is your camera. If not, I would wait for what is going to replace the D300S or if you don't mind using "old technology," the D300S is available at a discount. I wouldn't buy a D300S now because after seeing the D7000, you know how much better a DX DSLR can be in 2010, and it will only be even better later on in 2011, especially if Nikon combines better AF and the sensor/electronics on the D7000.</p>

<p>Also, you might check around your local camera clubs and see whether someone has a D7000 that you can play around with a bit, but honestly, I doubt that will help your decision.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>"I am willing to spend money on photo equipment because photography is very important to me. That is obvious."</p>

<p>Yes, and I think that is the difference. I enjoy it, and I take a camera when ever I go somewhere that I think good photo opportunities may occur, but it is just a hobby for me. There is a direct correlation between the importance of something and what you are willing to spend on it, I would say. It may also be that when something is important to you, you have a bit of a hard time understanding another person NOT wanting to spend as much without a lot of research, tests, and contemplation. No offense, Shun, but we are coming from two different places on this.</p>

<p>I can wish all I want, that the camera that has the features I want, and feels right with my lenses and in my hand sold for under $1000, but I don't think that is ever going to happen. That means I either need to spend more than I want or buy a camera that doesn't do all the things I want. I don't know how happy I would be with the second option.<br>

Now, this may just be me, but I don't want to use some stores return policy. It's my job to pick the right product, and their job to get it to me. If I fail on my part, I'd hate to make them take it back and then have an "open box" item that they can't sell as new anymore. If what I get is NOT as advertised, or is defective, I'll return it in a heart beat. <br>

I wonder what it would cost to rent these for a day ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For what it's worth, unless Nikon changes around their lineup again in the near future the DX00 cameras will always be better than the DX000 cameras for certain things. Shooting outdoor sports (where high ISO is not as important as AF speed), shooting in bad weather or dusty environments, or camping and hiking, as its very likely to get knocked about a lot.</p>

<p>If none of that matters to you, then the D7000, size aside, is a better camera. If it does, then you'll have to square yourself with the fact that regardless of age, the more expensive cameras are almost always built better, and the cheaper 'better' cameras will be built worse.</p>

<p>I usually shoot portraits with contrasty lighting, and I find that other than megapixels and the convenience of extra AF points, my D70 is almost as good as my D300. The larger sensor of the D700 makes a large difference under those conditions, but with good, careful lighting the D300 brings almost nothing to the table over the D70 other than print size.</p>

<p>Elliot,</p>

<p>I understand what you are saying, but did you buy your FIRST DSLR sight unseen or did you feel the need to go check it out first ? Once you have one, you can compare it to the newer models, and think to yourself about how different or similar each successive model is. You have a point of reference that reduces the need to have one in your hand, since the previous model IS in your hand. I don't have a point of reference other than an F4. A lot has changed between that camera body and now.</p>

<p>The point I was making with the cars reference is to show I don't upgrade very often. If the car still works, and it's paid for, and the insurance is lower because of the reduced value, I'm fine with it. No one NEEDS a new car, unless the one they have is not longer functional or what they use it for changes a lot. I don't need a DSLR and I wish the prices for the ones I want were a lot less. I just want one. There's a big difference for me, at least.</p>