Discussion in 'Nikon' started by allan_m, Sep 23, 2010.
I would like to know if the d7000 is worth it over the d300s?
Well, in my opinion, it is. 1080p video for starters. Smaller size, lighter weight, is a huge plus in favor of the D7000. Cheaper price too. What's there not to like in the D7000?
Impossible to answer if you don't say how you'll be using it, whether you care about things like SD vs. CF cards, if you already have other gear that might use the same vertical grip or batteries, etc. You need to give a lot more information before anyone could possibly help you decide that.
You might also want to read over this little thread to see lots of discussion about the D7000, and what people think about it so far.
What's there not to like in the D7000?That's the problem. We don't know what his priorities are. Perhaps he needs the D300's faster frame rate, or the greater number of focus points and the AF system that the D300 shares with Nikon's top of the line pro bodies. There may be nothing not to like, or there may be a real show-stopper of a single thing not to like. We don't know what lenses or shooting style will be involved, so we don't know if the heavier body is a good thing or a bad thing.
In the preview article, I have a table comparing features on the D7000, D90, and D300S: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D7000/preview/
It looks like the D300S still has better AF and faster frame rate. The D7000 only shoots compressed RAW (no uncompressed) and does not have that 10-pin terminal for connections. Otherwise, the D7000 is clearly newer technolgoy.
Is lossless compressed really any worse than uncompressed? I guess that would depend on how they are doing the compression, but I would guess no.
There's no compression, lossless compression, and lossy compression. The D7000 only has the latter. Something has to give when you throw away data. Mind you, when I choose lossy compressoin on my D300, it's just about never an issue. But it's detectable, if you're looking at large gradient areas, etc.
Zach, the details are not completely clear yet. The D90 only has lossy compressed RAW, no uncompressed nor lossless compressed. According to DPReview, the D7000 has compressed RAW only and I assume that it is the same as the D90: lossy only: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/NikonD7000/page2.asp
It also looks like if you shoot RAW + JPEG, it is always JPEG fine.
I have already highlighted the important points in the preview. Some of the fine details we just have to wait until we have a D7000 in our hands or at least when Nikon publishes a manual in PDF.
Matt, compression doesn't always mean loss of data. It could just mean a more compressed way to write data while still retaining all data.
D7000 specs on NikonUSA list lossless compressed RAW. I would hope that Nikon didn't screw up their specs when writing it on their official page. http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-N....html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs
There's no compression, lossless compression, and lossy compression. The D7000 only has the latter.Not according to the Nikon USA website info:
NEF (RAW): lossless compressed or compressed 12 or 14 bit
I am also wondering whether this information is correct, in particular the 2-stop EV change - this info is from the Nikon USA website but the nikonimaging.com site does not list the 2 EV step:
2 to 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1 or 2 EV
Tough call between the D300S and D7000 - there are some differences but some may not matter whereas others could be deal breakers.
Zach: I know. That's I mentioned the three flavors I did. A lossy-compressed RAW file is like a JPG in that sense. Some information is permanently lost. Hopefully the specs have settled down, and it's dpreview that's wrong about which type is in play, here.
Matt, sorry, I misread your post. You were going off the DPReview specs and saying there was only lossy. I misread and thought you meant all compression lost some form of data. Once again, my apologies.
There are a lot of errors in the early documentations, which is understandable since there are a lot of details. Apparently DPReview copied the specs for the D3100 into the D7000 one and made modifications; therefore initially they listed the prices for the D3100 in the D7000 preview. Of course a lot of people caught that and DPReview fixed them quickly. Nikon USA has their share of errors in their press releases and I have caught a number of them.
In any case, Nikon's lossy compressed RAW is so good that it is very difficult to see any difference. They only cut down the file size by half and they usually remove some of the highlights that is beyond human vision. I would have no concerns at all if only lossy compression is available.
Well, cool! That's another apples-apples comparison issue then. Then the big differences, for me, are the AF system, followed by the frame rate, followed by the card format, followed by the size/mass, followed by the incompatibility with grips/batteries. Everyone's going to have different can-live-with-it vs. can't-live-with-it standards. The new body is no slouch, that's for sure. I'd happily carry one as a backup, if it weren't for the battery and card issues.
Interesting that on the D70 and D80 one could only shoot RAW+JPG with the JPG being saved in Basic compression (highest, I believe Nikon states it is 1:16 compression). Now Nikon does an about face and changes it to RAW+JPG Fine, which doesn't make sense as if one is shooting RAW in the first place, the JPG files are usually only used as full size on-screen proofs anyway. I shoot RAW+JPG all the time, and usually leave the JPG setting to Basic or Normal, but never Fine. Granted, hard drive storage space is so cheap now, Fine JPGs aren't that much larger than Normal, so no biggie. But when uploading 1000 JPG files it's nice to have a little less data to upload, thus less waiting time, etc.
7fps on the D300 to 6fps on the D7000 means nothing to me, I never shoot rapid fire style as I don't shoot sports. Plus if someone is shooting sports, they need the highest speed AF anyway. I don't need high speed AF, but I do want good low light AF, and the D7000 should have that in spades.
I'm just excited to get 1080p video and a smaller, lighter body. And from the samples I've seen, the D7000 has outstanding high ISO quality, better than the D300s at ISO 6400.
Matt, compression doesn't always mean loss of data. It could just mean a more compressed way to write data while still retaining all data.
Zip is by default a lossless compression format. Nikon's lossy NEF compression does actually lose some info but it's very difficult to detect the difference visually. Basically some highlight gradations are lost but this is of very little practical consequence. But again there is the question of speed: on my computer, it takes significantly longer to convert compressed NEF files than uncompressed, and this difference in processing times is sufficient (for me) that I always use uncompressed NEFs.
Christian, have we confused you yet?
The chances of you seeing any artifacts in a "lossy" compressed RAW file are virtually nil anyway.
If you need sports AF, that's one reason to go with the 300s instead. There are others, but I think that's the biggee... I'm of the opinion that the D7000 is a D90 AND a D300-killer for most people, and expect to see a D400 sooner rather than later myself...
On the sports thing, it really depends which sports you shoot. I shoot ski/snowboard, and rarely, if ever, have I ever needed faster AF than the D200 has. So the D7000 should be more than up to the task. The reason is, rarely do I have more than one target coming at my shot, and rarely do I not have ample time to track said target. The only time I haven't is when I was on the bottom side of a jump.
That said, if I shot something like football, football, hockey or basketball, where you can change targets faster and more often, I would think the better AF would come in handy.
BTW, it looks like the D7000 does not have the AF-ON button. Apparently that is an issue for some people. I do not use the AF-ON button unless I need to foucs in live view mode.
I would say that no pin connector for cable release (D90 style connector is no good, gets unplugged together with cable too easy), no AF-ON button and (maybe) lack of more AF points are the only things I miss in D7000(at least from specs). Others specs are very nice.
And new batteries. :-( I hope D400 will not require new batteries (format) as well as new grip. I don't understand why they can't make them compatible at least (size, connectors) and just add capacity. In this way one could use older batteries or newer ones (just with better capacity).
Never had a use for the AF-On button, even while using LiveView (which focuses with a half-press to the shutter release just fine for me). In fact, while using LiveView, I will often switch to manual focus.
Nikon themselves have to take some of the blame over the confusion about compression settings. Lossy NEF compressed was originally misleadingly called 'visually lossless'. Now it's just called 'compressed' without qualification. The more recent 'lossless compressed' setting (where available) is truly lossless, like zip.
'I don't understand why they can't make them compatible at least (size, connectors) and just add capacity.'
Then they don't get to sell you a new grip! Bet you the D7000 battery will be the new standard through most of the range ('single digit' bodies excepted) and the MB-D10 will be replaced if/when the 'D400' comes out.
'BTW, it looks like the D7000 does not have the AF-ON button. Apparently that is an issue for some people.'
If we're lucky, there'll be a custom setting (as with the D300 etc.) to use the AE-L button as AF-On (though of course you'll have to choose one or the other).
BTW, it looks like the D7000 does not have the AF-ON button. Apparently that is an issue for some people.
yep, that does make a difference when shooting action, as you can acquire focus a bit faster with AF-On. which presents a bit of a condundrum. the d7000 is clearly an upgrade from a d90 and better than the d300 in some respects while omitting some key features, which really only come into play for action/sports or other situations where AF speed is critical.the 10-pin connector is also useful for a flash bracket with a remote trigger, such as the one i have...
but how much sense does it make to get a d300s now, so late into its product cycle, with a replacement expected in 2011?
if you think the D7000 looks good, then i bet the successor to the D300s will blow your socks off. nikon obviously wasn't ready to obsolete the D300 line yet, even though these new models quite nakedly are biting at the D300s' heels. it can only mean some pretty awesome developments are in the wings...
if you need to buy a camera now, i agree that nikon will make you sweat your choice a little bit. i'm sure they understand that the anxiety and uncertainty will drive sales to the D7000 short term -- which probably doesn't bother them at all. having raised the bar, however, after someone buys that new D7000, i bet they'll be looking over their shoulders, and wondering what might come zipping past...
Again, I would like to emphasis that for the information I was able to verify, I have already put into the comparison table in the preview. I think those are the significant differences.
Based on the images of the D7000 body from Nikon and DPReview, it is quite clear that the AF-ON button and the 10-pin connector are absent. Otherwise, little issues such as whether you can shoot RAW + JPEG basic, we'll just have to verify after the D7000 is available. Since both the D90 and D5000 can capture RAW + any type of JPEG compression, it is unexpected that if the D7000 does not provide all of those options.
Nikon is not going to rain on the D7000's parade. I would imagine that anything that replaces the D300S will be at least 6 months from the launch date for the D7000, perhaps a bit longer. Before, a lot of the technology on the D200 was passed down to the D80; the same between the D300 and D90. In this case, things are happening in the reverse order.
I remember your previous post, and you already have a D90 and you haven't gone pro. I think you'd be best served by waiting and seeing when the D7000 ships and there's more information than speculation, and in the meantime practice, practice, practice - build your technical skill set to the point where you can find the limits of your camera, then decide whether you need a new one and which one to choose.
While the particulars of the D7000's performance aren't clear yet, I think it's safe to assume that there will be areas where a D7000 would be preferable to a D300s and areas where it's the other way around, and you want to get to the point where you can differentiate those and prioritize which will be best suited to your needs.
I am curious about what happened to the old and good AF-S, and AF-C switch on the D7000?
Is it an improvement, or just a shortcut?
Eric, how can you acquire focus a bit faster with AF-On?
Elliot, using AF-On button to acquire action separately from shutter release button (setting it to trigger only and without AF function) allows AF to continue working the target without any interuption as in the case of using only shutter release button to function as both AF and trigger (in which tripping shutter will interupt AF and tracking causing lost of acquired target.) AF may not be "Technically" faster, but in using AF-On as described above, but you will be able to track fast moving action and shoot at high frame rate in AF-C mode much more reliably than using default AF & trigger on the shutter release button alone.
If D7000 has an option to assign AE-L as an AF-On button (like the old D70 did with later firmware,) then I wouldn't have a problem using it as a back up for sports.
I kind of doubt that the D7000 will be viewed as an excellent sports camera as the D3 and D300 are. The D7000 caps at 6 frames/sec and there are only 9 cross-type AF points, all in the very center of the frame.
Remember people used to shoot sports with the F4 and N90s, and the D7000 has far better AF than those cameras. It's all relative. I think technique goes before technology. Someone can have a very high tech camera like the D300, but know nothing about how to take advantage of it, or have the D7000, with slightly lower AF technology, but know how to use it to the fullest advantage. I never shoot sports, but sometimes shoot flying airplanes at airshows. Even with the D300, I felt like my technique for shooting moving objects is terrible, so I am sure I'll be fine with the D7000.
BTW, it looks like the D7000 does not have the AF-ON button. Apparently that is an issue for some people. I do not use the AF-ON button unless I need to foucs in live view mode.I checked this at the Photokina.
The Exposure lock button of the D7000 can be programmed to act as an AF-on button.
I checked since I dislike different AF-on activations between bodies. I could show you some of the reasons ^^
Remember people used to shoot sports with the F4 and N90sYes, I certainly remember the early 1990's. When the Nikon cameras with the best AF systems were the N90s and F4, professional sports photographers switched to Canon in huge numbers. Prior to that, Nikon was the undisputed market leader among professional news and sports photographers in the 1970's and 1980's. Canon took over the leadership almost overnight because of their superior AF. Since then, you mainly saw Canon white lenses in professional sports event for over a decade. Nikon finally managed to turn the tide with the D3. At the 2008 Brijing Olympics, you could see roughly half Canon and half Nikon.
If you are wondering, equipment does matter; at least it matters at the high end.
I have been using the Multi-CAM 3500 shooting sports and wildlife since its introduction in 2007 and I have developed the habit to mainly use its 15 cross-type AF points. If anything, I would like to see more cross-type AF points and have them spreaded out throughout the frame as on the Canon EOS 7D. The D7000 (Multi-CAM 4800) is moving in the opposite direction, but of course it is a much more affordable DSLR. So more realisitcally, I'd like to see the improvement on the successor to the D300/D300S.
Walter, thanks for the info. I am sure a lot of people are glad to learn that. As I pointed out earlier, it is hard to beat actual hands on experience.
Eric, how can you acquire focus a bit faster with AF-On?
what wilson said. this observation comes from hands-on experience at shooting fast-moving action with a d300. when using the AF-On, the focus engages when you press the button and the shutter deployment is separate--there's no half-press/depress, just depress. this is particularly helpful when shooting a bunch of frames in rapid succession, since you dont have to refocus in-between each press of the button. in real-word usage, this proved to be a bit faster on the d300.
i suppose you can use the AE-L button as an AF-On button but i rather liked the fact this had its own dedicated button on the d300. having more cross-type sensors and AF points and faster fps should make the d7000 better for sports/action than the d90, but the AF module on the new model is apparently not as good as the d300's. the question is, will it be good enough for all but dedicated sports shooters?
but the AF module on the new model is apparently not as good as the d300'sWhere did you get this information from?
The D300S uses the same Multi-CAM 3500 AF module as the D300, D700, and D3 family. That has 51 AF points in total and 15 of the 51 are cross type.
The D7000 uses a new Multi-CAM 4800 that has 39 AF points and 9 of them are cross type.
I pay less attention to the total number of AF points, but the number of cross type and their distribution is important to sports and action photography. E.g. I think Canon has done a very good job with the 19 cross-type AF points on the 7D. Since the D7000's 9 cross-type AF points are all in the center of the frame, most likely it is not going to be that great for shooting sports. It is likely going to be a major step up from the D90, of course, but it is a step down from the D300/D300S. We'll find out for sure when we get to test the D7000.
When I played with the D7000 at the Photokina I noticed that AF was noticably slower than what I am used to from my D3 (which is probably as fast as the D300 but that is my speculation).
Now the cameras that were available were all fitted with a consumer zoom lens. This could slow down the AF speed (there was good light available).
The cameras were slow in focusing the lens not necessarily in finding the correct focus. So perhaps the D700 does not supply much power to the lens motor?
BTW: It might be of interest that the camera was very quiet when shooting - the sound was also less harsh than D3 and D700.
At first I was not certain because of the high noise level at the Photokina hall. But after some shooting I was more certain that this is the case. Several photographers near me got the same impression. For those who want a quiet camera try to look into this but make certain you can verify this.
Quiet cameras are nice. I was disappointed with the loud thwack! made by the D700 after using my D300 for a year.
I tried the D7000 at the photokina as well,
In the Quiet mode it is quite a bit more quiet. I think it did slow down a bit.
But I didn't have much time to test it.
I did not notice any difference between the D90 and the standard 'LOUD shutter' setting. But I also did not check for any differences.
I just read the five pages of responses to the D7000 vs D300s question and I want to thank all of the contributors for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I just bought the D300s, upgraded from my D80. I shoot mostly indoor available low light for sports (basketball) or school activities like plays and performances. I discovered only today Nikon's release of the D7000. I thought I had made a mistake after reading all the other reviews, but after reading your posts about the anticipated better AF module in the D300s, I feel much more comfortable that I have the right camera for my needs. Coupled with my new 85mm 1.8 lens, I think I'm good to go with the D300s for low light fast action shots.
I'm planning to sell my D80 on eBay - I better do so quick with the new D7000 on the market! Happy shooting, everyone.
Jocelyn, D300S vs. D7000 seems to be a tough call at this point, especially since the D7000 is not yet available for actual testing and comparison. For shooting sports, having 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10 (and right batteries) is still an advantage for the D300S.
The D7000 is already having an impact on new D300S and D90 prices. I hope you got a good deal. The D80 is from so far back in the past that only those who are on a tight budget will be interested in it. It probably has already lost most of the value it is going to lose by now.
Shun wrote "I pay less attention to the total number of AF points, but the number of cross type and their distribution is important to sports and action photography"
Shun, what is the advantage of the "cross type" AF point over the "other type" of AF point?
A cross-type AF point is sensitive to contrast in both the vertical and horizontal directions and tends to provide much better focusing, especially under dim conditions. A line type AF point is only sensitive to lines in one direction; if your subject lacks contrast in the direction that AF point is sensitive in, you are out of luck.
here are my thoughts on this:
Separate names with a comma.