D300 vs D7000

<p>Ok, <br>

I just sold my D200 and am going to get either D300 or D7000. (Dont have money for D700... sad...)</p>

<p>I have been to pretty much all the links that compares D300/D300s vs D7000 and 80% of the comparison and comments (recommendation) are D7000.</p>

<p>Love D7000 for low light performance and light weight. D200 was a bit heavy but good size although I didnt really mind the size of D7000 either.<br>

For many reasons, I too like the D7000.</p>

<p>However, I still am questioning D7000 (over D300) for these two reasons:<br>

1) Built quality, especially the weather seal. I know D7000 does have partial weather sealing on it but I do lot of storm chasing during summer where I'd be shooting under rough environment. Dust is not a huge concern but I also would like to take that as a consideration. <br>

I want to know if D7000 has enough sealing to it. Has anyone done anything like it? (AND yes, I've seen youtube videos where people shower D7000 with weather sealed lenses :p)</p>

<p>2) I still have 2 batteries for D200 that I sold along with 4GB CF memory card which will be useless if I got D7000. Not a huge deal, I guess I could sell them or whatever but if I got D300, it'll be nice.</p>

<p>I am no pro and since it will be my only camera, getting used to the new settings and buttons won't be a problem and I just dont care for HD Video right now. <br>

I currently own:<br>

18-70mm, 50/1.8, 35/2, sigma 10-20/4-5.6 <br>

I am planning to replace 18-70 and 35/2 with 18-200 and sigma 30/1.4.</p>

<p>Let me know what you guys is better choice for me.<br>

Thank you</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am planning to replace 18-70 with 18-200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why - this is certainly a step down in terms of optical quality.<br>

Can't comment on the weather sealing - but if you are in a rough environment then maybe using some raincover or even a simply plastic bag might not be a bad idea.</p>

<p>I would not let the two batteries dictate which camera to buy.</p>

<p>If the small size of the D7K isn't a problem for you, then I don't see a reason not to chose it over the D300. Even though the D300 has the more extensive bracketing range and more AF points - these may or may not matter to you.</p>

<p>You told us all sorts of things, except what you photo. That's the WHOLE THING--the idea is to match the gear to what you photo.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have both. I recommend the D7k. Lighter but just as well built. Better IQ.<br>

There is no flash pc outlet, other than that a classic. The 300 is slightly older tech. </p>

<p>I too have both. The D300 has been my backup camera since I bought the D7000. To me, the choice is a no brainer. However, this is photo.net: something that is obvious to me is not necessarily obvious to someone else.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity how is replacing 18-70 with 18-200 a step down?<br>

I never tried 18-200 but I "thought" 18-200 would be better if not similar... (although I guess it could be more glasses = less quality) <br>

Thought about plastic bag but while running around and climbing places it just gets in your way a lot! If I am after something like lightning where I use tripod, yes I used plastic bag on my D200 most of the time, strong winds will just blow everything away :p</p>

<p>Kent, I thought "storm chasing" would give you a good idea what photos I take. Yes, it is true I do street photography as well but, I wanted to focus outdoor, nature/weather photos going after storms...</p>

<p>Errol and Shun, good to hear that both of you own both cameras.<br>

I also believe that D7000 IS much better camera. D300 may be a "pro" body but it is quite outdated compared to D7000. I just am not so sure about it's built quality and weather-sealing. What are your thought on that???</p>

<p>Thanks guys!</p>

<p>I own both cameras as well and I love them both. I love the size of the d300 but I love the IQ of the 7K as well as the high ISO performance. I am slowly getting used to the size of the 7K. The build of the d300 is better but if I could only own one of the two it would be the 7K. I am glad I have both and I am looking forward to what the d400 will offer. the upgrade beat goes on.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>18-70 vs 18-200: see for yourself: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/235-nikkor-af-s-18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=2 and<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/242-nikkor-af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report?start=2</p>

<p>Even just considering the zoom range - ~11x vs ~4x - hints on which lens will entail more compromises in its optical design. I actually owned the 18-70 (sold it when I sold the D70 I bought it with) and have also taken some shots with the 18-200 (which I had on order when it first came out and which amazon cancelled my order on after almost a year of waiting - bringing me to my senses to not acquire the lens after all). The only advantage - under certain circumstances - that the 18-200 has over the 18-70 is the VR.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the price raises Nikon's lenses underwent in the last few years make the 18-70, 16-85, and 18-200 appear quite overpriced for what they essentially actually are - kit lenses. To get a versatile lens to upgrade to from a 18-70 at a reasonable cost - look no further than the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Macro OS HSM. If I recall correctly, then the 18-70 when it was introduced cost a little over $250 - nowadays the price is around $400 - and at that price the lens is no match to the Sigma at around $450.</p>

<p>I chose the D300s over the D7000 last year because I wanted the faster AF, frame rate, build quality, CF card and fit, and especially, I did not want the program dial on the upper left that I so often nudged to a different setting just at the wrong time on my D70s.</p>

<p> I think I would rather have the D300 because it's layout is pretty much like my D200. I checked out the D7000 at CostCo and did not like the the control knob on the left with scene modes and such and I thought the grip was extra fat and uncomfortable. I am not shopping for a camera but I am sure I would be happy with the D300. </p>

<p>I'll vouch for the D7k's weather-sealing...mine's been through slot canyons, deserts, cold, heat, snow, rain and thoroughly showered by a geyser in Yellowstone.....and still going fine.<br>

<br /> If it's possible, can you rent/borrow one of each for a few days?</p>

<p>kind of comes down to the d300's better AF and bigger body vs. the D7000's better almost everything else and smaller body. btw, i wouldnt trade an 18-70 for a 18-200; especially if you get the d7k. the pixel density will make that lens look bad. 35/1.8 isnt a bad idea, i'd think about the 85/1.8 G too.</p>

<p>The choice between the D7000 and D300 seems to be obvious and you seem to know the answer. By the way, there are I believe inexpensive weatherproof cases available for the D7000 that will offer you additional protection (highly recommended). Considering the low cost, you may want to consider something like this:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Waterproof-Nikon-D3000-Underwater-Hous/dp/B003L75CUC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1333968369&sr=8-7</p>

<p>Some like the 18-200mm. Some don't. I don't know of any better once lens alternative. I am one of those that had no serious issues with it on the D7000. BUT, I also always shot RAW and used image correction software other than Nikon's (DXO) to take care of the minor optical issues that many report - all are easily correctable. In the end, my pictures looked great. Is the 18-200mm as good as Nikon's pro glass? Of course not. It is not meant to be. But unless you are printing really huge posters and looking at them from 12" away or pixel peeping, you likely would not notice much difference if any (after post processing).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have not used either. I went from a D200 to a D700. I would tend to agree with Shun and Eric and others. If AF speed was critical I would go for the D300(s), everything else points to the D7000. Do realize the sensor in the D7000 will be more critical of the glass. If I needed the extra range out to 200mm I would look closely at a 80-200mm f2.8 type zoom, probably used. The control layout and viewfinder are extremely important to me so a good look at both bodies would also be in order. Trying to save on a couple of batteries and a small card is not something I would consider, they are cheap (comparitively) and the card is small. All that said I would like to have a D7000 for my tele and it is smaller and lighter for travel, hiking.</p>

<p>I'd get the 7000 if it were me, unless sports shooting was my job.</p>

<p>The 18-70 and 18-200, in my experience (I've owned both and tested them against each other), are, when stopped down 1 or 2 stops, basically identical in performance. The 18-200 is fine until 120mm or so (stopped down at least to f8). Above that, I had no problems with photos I wasn't going to print big (and that on 6MP cameras), but at the long end it tends to be soft, and either of those cameras would potentially frustrate you at the long end.</p>

<p>The 18-70 also handles much much better (except for the minor annoyance of the 18-24 range being all bunched up too close on the zoom ring). I think I find it a tad more useful wide open than the 18-200 was, but my testing, honestly, produced identical results in actual print tests.</p>

<p>I got rid of my 18-200 (which is a nice vacation lens on a 6MP camera imho... that's what it's good at and I woudn't hesitate to recommend it for that... if there were still any 6MP cameras that is...) and replaced it with an 18-70 AND a 70-300 VR. I am infinitely happier with that combo. (If I could afford to, I'd replace the 18-70 with the 16-85VR.)</p>

<p>There is actually some very well-substantiated rumors <em>(leaks... only saying this because it was reported right here by a moderator)</em> of an 18-<em><strong>300</strong></em> coming... and for those who need a one-lens solution... who knows? it might be worth checking out. If it's soft on the long end, it might still be pretty usable (stopped down a stop-and a half or so... all consumer zooms need that for best performance imho) out to 200mm. One thing for sure: It'll drop the used price of 18-200 lenses very quickly.</p>

<p>I would go for the D7000. I own a D300, D80, and D5100. The D80 does OK in reasonably harsh conditions. The image quality of the D5100 is an improvement over the D300. You don't need really fast AF or the 1/250 flash sync. So, it's the D7000 by default.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Any one-lens solution is typically a bad solution, mainly suitable for those who need convenience over quality (and there is nothing wrong with such preference). As my wife likes to point out: one size cannot fit all. You don't use the same car to speed down a hilly, windy road, to tow a boat, and to bring 5 kids to a ball game. People drive different cars for different occasions and may need to rent one occasionally.</p>

<p>The 18-300mm DX lens info was leaked by Nikon Spain: <a href="00aBr4">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aBr4</a>. When the leak comes directly from a Nikon web site, there should be little dobut about it. Perhaps an official announcement is weeks away, but that part we don't know. However, such an extrem zoom is likely going to be even worse than the 18-200.</p>

<p>If storm is what you chase, then it's the D300(s?). I've used my D7000 under "normal" rain without any cover, those were the times when I forgot if I have slipped any plastic bag somewhere in my bag. I live in a tropical country, so humidity is also a problem. It has been a year, and the D7000 is still in good shape (I hope), of course I did some (imo) proper self dry-cleaning. I saw the you-tube "stunt" you've mentioned, doing that just because they (think) they can is still beyond me. So I guess If you "need" to pull out of your camera under the storm, naked, and have less worries, and also considering your fund now (D400 or whatever aside) you might better go with d300, better focus system as the bonus. Lower IQ and ISO capability then D7000? Well, with suitable lens professionals created great photos with it. <br>

The general rule is that there are always trade offs with "multi purpose" lens, if capturing the "general moment" is what you have in mind, go with the super zoom, but if IQ and the "specific moment" is the purpose, stay with what you have, or read some more around the specific lenses.</p>

<p>Search for D7000 vs D300, or D300 vs D7000, and you will find perhaps more than 100 posts, or some 460 entries. Read some of them to see diferent opinions expressed there. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Search for D7000 vs D300, or D300 vs D7000, and you will find perhaps more than 100 posts, or some 460 entries. Read some of them to see diferent opinions expressed there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not that many people have actual experience with both cameras. Those who do typically have upgraded from the D300/D300S to the D7000, as I did. And of course those people prefer the D7000 or we wouldn't have upgraded.</p>

<p>Some people don't like the smaller size of the D7000. That is a subjective preference. Since the camera is smaller, the controls are different and some dedicated buttons are missing. If you don't like small cameras, the D7000 is not for you.</p>

<p>Then there are some others who for whatever reason bought a D300S recently. Those people tend to get defensive when people tell that that have made a mistake buying an out-of-date camera.</p>

<p>For both the D300 and D7000, there are a lot of "horror stories" about people having trouble with them. That tends to happen to every popular Nikon model. The D7000 has a dense 16MP sensor; whatever flaws from camera shake, focusing errors, etc. is greatly magnified. The same is true for the new D800.</p>

<p>I went through the same decision a few months ago and got a D300s. the things I do not like about my D80 are the lack of an AF-on button and being limited to a 3 shot bracket series and both of those apply to the D7000 as well. I got used to the AF-on button on my F100 and missed it on the D80. I know you can configure the ae_l/af-l button to function as AF-on, but I shoot with my left eye and wear glasses so that was less than ideal. I also like having the ability to shoot 5 frames at 1 stop intervals for HDR work. I am an amateur and print no larger than 13X 19 for hanging on the walls of my home. The D80 prints look great so I felt the D300s would be the best choice.</p>

<p>I own both the D300, which I use for surfing and college football images, and a D7000 which I use for everything else. The D300 has a solid feel for sports shooting whereas the D7000 has the better feel (to me) for landscape and is a great feeling compact body. I use a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.0 OS on the D7000 and it is an incredible combo. </p>

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>I'm going to throw in a vote for a D300, if price matters. I assume you're looking at used cameras, since it would be pretty hard to find a new D300 (unless you mean a D300s, in which case, throw out my argument!). The *average* used price of a D300 tends to be a little lower than that of a D7000, but the D7000 tends to be fairly stable, while D300 prices tend to be all over the place. I've seen them listed for more than the price of a *new* D7000, but I've also seen them listed for a lot less...</p>

<p>I recently bought a D300 for *half* the price of a D7000. Granted, that was a particularly good find, but I'd imagine you could get something that's not too far off if you're persistent. I know that, given what I had, I was better off putting that extra cash towards a new lens that would depreciate a lot slower than a camera body, buy YMMV.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents!</p>

<p>Mike</p>

<p>I'd keep the 18-70, but then that's just me.</p>

<p>Had a D300 and it basically fell apart from use, got a D 7000 and glad the D 300 fell apart.</p>