d300s vs d7000!???

<p>hello!!!!<br>

I would like to know if the d7000 is worth it over the d300s?</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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. <br /><br />You might also want to read over <strong><a href="00XHzq">this little thread</a></strong> to see lots of discussion about the D7000, and what people think about it so far.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's there not to like in the D7000?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In the preview article, I have a table comparing features on the D7000, D90, and D300S: <a href="../equipment/nikon/D7000/preview/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D7000/preview/</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>There's no compression, lossless compression, and <em>lossy</em> 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.</p>

<p>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: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/NikonD7000/page2.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/NikonD7000/page2.asp</a></p>

<p>It also looks like if you shoot RAW + JPEG, it is always JPEG fine.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>For instance, you zip a file, and then unzip it, you have not lost any data. Or you compress javascript by removing extra whitespace and changing variable names to things basically unreadible to humans, but very readable to a computer. Once again, no information is lost.</p>

<p>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. <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25468/D7000.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs">http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25468/D7000.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's no compression, lossless compression, and <em>lossy</em> compression. The D7000 only has the latter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not according to the Nikon USA website info:<br /> NEF (RAW): lossless compressed or compressed 12 or 14 bit</p>

<p>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:<br /> 2 to 3 frames in steps of 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1 or 2 EV<br>

<br /> Tough call between the D300S and D7000 - there are some differences but some may not matter whereas others could be deal breakers.</p>

<p>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 <em>have</em> settled down, and it's dpreview that's wrong about which type is in play, here.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Christian, have we confused you yet?</p>

<p>The chances of you seeing any artifacts in a "lossy" compressed RAW file are virtually nil anyway.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br /> 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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>'I don't understand why they can't make them compatible at least (size, connectors) and just add capacity.'</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>'BTW, it looks like the D7000 does not have the AF-ON button. Apparently that is an issue for some people.'</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p><em>BTW, it looks like the D7000 does not have the AF-ON button. Apparently that is an issue for some people.</em></p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>but how much sense does it make to get a d300s now, so late into its product cycle, with a replacement expected in 2011?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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... <br>

if you <em>need</em> to buy a camera <em>now</em>, 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...</p>