D7000 that much better than the D300?

<p>Is the D7000 demonstratively (thank you Mac spell check for these new big words in my vocabulary) better than the D300 at base and higher ISO? Actually I would settle for "just as good" as I feel the D300 is already excellent. </p>

<p>Sanford, I believe that the D7000 is the replacement for the d90. The cameras are getting better and I believe that the tests have proven that it is a little better than the D300, but I believe when Nikon replaces the D300/300s that camera will surpass the d7000 in all aspects.</p>

<p>What I'm looking for is a lighter weight Nikon. I've been using a Panasonic GF1 and loving the results at ISO 100 but this last week I went back to the D300 and was reminded what a great all-around camera it is. Just way to heavy for hours walking around.</p>

<p>Ive used almost all the Nikon bodies and without a doubt the new Nikon dx bodies are soo close to the quality of the fx systems that makes it such a great buy. The d300 is pretty old already so its natural that the newer bodies are much more improved. Of course build quality of the d300 and focusing speed still makes it an able body but the d7000 features make up the price diff. HD video, color ( much more pop), exposure and white balance id say edges the d700 more so the d300. The only thing the d700 is superior is its high iso. The d7000 is no slouch its just that in the really high iso range of course the dx is nosier but not by much. So to answer your question yes it is better than the d300. Another thing to ponder on is you can get a d300 and just use the extra money for good glass but the d7000 makes it a worthy purchase for anybody looking for a good priced dx body coz its just stellar :)</p>

<p>First of all, the D7000's base ISO is 100 while the D300/D300S/D90/D5000 are ISO 200. I cannot see a whole lot of difference at ISO 400 or even 800. However, from 1600 and up, you should see perhaps 2/3 stop difference in the shadow areas. The D7000 has acceptable ISO 6400 but the D300 tops out at 3200; the D300 has a Hi 1 ISO 6400 equivalent that produces terrible results.</p>

<p>I follow Nikon's specification that the D7000 is not a replacement of anything. It is a new class of DSLR that is between the D300/D300S and D90. To me, it is closer to the D300 than to the D90 in terms of features, but the D7000's controls and size are similar to the D90's.</p>

<p>I still use my D300 mainly due to its better AF and higher frame rates, including a bigger RAW buffer. The D7000 is not intended to be a sports/action camera and its buffer is much easier to fill up (partly due to SD memory cards instead of CF). For just about anything else, the D7000 is the better camera.</p>

<p>There should be little doubt that Nikon will have some "D400" this year that combines the best from the D300S and D7000, and perhaps a little more. The D300 design is close to 4 years old and an update is certainly due.</p>

<p>If you believe DxOMark then yes the D7000 sensor is demonstrably better than the D300/300s. Other aspects of the D300 such as build quality, frame rate are still superior but for sensor performance three year old tech doesn't keep up.</p>

<p>Have you looked at the D3100? It's controls and AF are more basic but its image quality is excellent and it is about half the weight of the D300.</p>

<p>Since I bought my D7000, I had not used my d300s until this past sunday and to be honest the d7000, is simply better and i will disagree with shun and even go as far as to say that the auto focus is faster in the d7000. the auto focus is something to behold. so the d300s is now the back up body to the d7000. </p>

<p>I own and use both the D300 and D7000. My first impression is that the D7000 is a nice replacement for my D200. It's small, light and much higher resolution. I then put it on my Sigma 300-800 to see if it can capture birds in flight. The release button is perfect and the auto focus is pretty decent at grabbing and maintaining focus on flying pelicans. Actually better at this than my D300. Now the downside. Obviously the body is a little small for the Sigmonster but that isn't the main problem. The D7000 just isn't sharp on this lens. Even when the pelicans were sitting on the cliffs in La Jolla, the images were soft. Also, as the pelicans were flying, lighting conditions changed and it seemed the D7000 just couldn't keep up. As noted in previous posts, even at JPEG fine, there simply isn't enough buffer. Since my original intention was not to use this body for birds in flight, this isn't an issue. I would like to point out that under similar conditions, the D300 never misses a beat, the images are crisp and the exposures perfect. I will continue to work with the settings on the D7000 to make sure the soft images are not my fault. I also need to do some testing with smaller lenses to make sure there isn't an issue with the camera body. I originally noticed the softness in my Nikon 200-400 F4 AFS lens so I can't blame the softness on the Sigma. I suspect the D7000 just may not be suitable for longer lenses. At the present time, I just don't know the reason why.</p>

<p>michael, i noticed the same thing with the soft images when i used my 70-200f/2.8 but after i fine tuned the camera to the lens, it fixed the problem. i downloaded a focus chart and spent about an hour or so fine tunning it. i have come to realize that this is pretty common practice for all my dslr's now. i also agree with the buffer and it is annoying. the pentax k-5 had a similar buffer problem and pentax fixed it with firmware. i am hoping nikon does the same and fix it with firmware as well. as for BIF, AF.C in 3d mode is fantastic for that. amazing actually. </p>

<p>Michael, the reason is very simple: the D7000 has 16MP on a DX-area sensor; it is more demanding on the optics. I am happy with my results using the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR on the D7000, but I noticed that it is harder to get good results from the 500mm/f4 AF-S. There are just too many pixels and if you look at the pixel level, it is harder for the lenses to keep up.</p>

<p>That is why I think it is silly to cramp even more pixels on the DX sensor. It is going to be meaningless to have 24MP on DX; in fact, due to the tiny pixel size, most likely that will give you worse results at mid to high ISO.</p>

<p>by the way, the best thing i have done for my d7000 is add the grip to it. it is a perfect size for me now as it was a tad small before.</p>

<p>Javier, when I checked out the D7000 at Best Buy the overall impression was closer to that of my D80 than the D300 in that intangible rush you get when handling something high quality (are we nuts!?). What is the K5 like? It is unlikely a local store in my area would ever stock a Pentax and more unlikely I would get one, but just curious. I have had several Spotmatics in the past.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i will disagree with shun and even go as far as to say that the auto focus is faster in the d7000.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>not according to nikon. also the d7000 doesnt have the d300s' buffer. it's pretty clear that despite the overall greatness of the d7000 and its new kid on the block status, it's just not as capable, performance-wise, for sports or action--probably because nikon draws a line in the sand between prosumer and pro bodies. you get a lot of goodies with the d7000, but you don't get all the goodies.</p>

<p>sanford, i do not own a k-5, so i really don't know. i did have a k-7 but sold it after a years worth of use. i also have 2 k20ds that i really love...in fact those k20ds are my primary dslr's for street shooting, mostly because of the tiny prime lenses. but back to the d7000 vs d300s. the d7000 with grip is a little bit bigger than the d300s with out a grip. if i get the chance i will take a picture them tomorrow as the d7000 is in my truck right now. </p>

<p>eric, i will agree on the buffer as stated above, but not on the auto focus speed in spite of fewer sensors. but i will concede that if i was shooting sports, i would grab my d300s. </p>

<p>javier, the d300 has the same AF module as the D3 series. it would be stupid of nikon to put a better AF system in a $1200 camera over a $4000 one. that's just common sense.</p>

<p>Javier,<br>

In my experience with the D300, to see the best of its AF speed goodness, the default settings are not the 'best'. 51 points 3D tracking, to me, just does not quite seem as speedy as 21 or 9 points AF. If I want AF tracking on fast(ish) moving objects, I use the 21 points AF, with to my feel better results. So, maybe you would want to dig in the D300 AF settings and try the perceivably lower settings - in case you did not try yet.<br>

Just to be sure, I haven't seen a D7000 yet, so I cannot make the direct comparison.</p>

<p>I am curious if anyone can tell how is the viewfinder of D7000 in comparison with D300 and D700. Is it easier of harder to do manual focus on it? The green dot includes arrows like in D700 or not (like D300)?<br>

I am quite tired waiting a little FX camera from Nikon for street/travel... so I am considering a D7000... but I want a lightweight kit like: 24/2.8 AIS, 35/2 AF-D and 105/2.5 AIS and I'm not sure if I can deal with MF on D7000. Any first hand experience would be appreciated!</p>

<p>The buffer capacity of the d7000 for RAW images varies from 11 to 15 depending on mode and compression settings. Except for JPG Large Fine which has a buffer capacity of 31, all other jpg options have a buffer of 100. This is from Nikon's website. What is possibly more important [to me] is how fast the buffer clears. Is 11 enough? Only you can decide. Certainly 100 is.</p>

<p><em>If you believe DxOMark then yes the D7000 sensor is demonstrably better than the D300/300s</em>. Their site does show differences between the two bodies, but the differences are not huge. In fact, I suspect it would be difficult to see any differences in typical pictures. A lot depends on how you shoot (RAW vs JPG), what software you use for PP and how skilled you are with it.</p>

<p><em>"the d300 has the same AF module as the D3 series"</em> True, but the performance is night and day different between the two.</p>

<p><em>"Is the D7000 demonstratively better than the D300 at base and higher ISO?"</em> There are numerous factors that would contribute to answering this question. But after all is said and done, I doubt you would see any differences unless you are printing huge posters or pixel peeping.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is possibly more important [to me] is how fast the buffer clears. Is 11 enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is where the problem is. If you shoot lossless compressed RAW on the D7000, it takes about 2 seconds to write each frame, even on class 10 SDHC memory cards. The D7000 can shoot 6 frames a second, so in less than 2 seconds, you can fill up your buffer and it'll be that long wait for it to clear. The very first day I took my D7000 out to shoot wildlife and sports, I ran into that problem over and over. In 3+ years using the D300, I did not run into that situation even once.</p>

<p>Since then I have learned to use (lossy) compressed RAW on the D7000. The RAW file size is cut in half and so is the write speed. When the D7000 can write 1 RAW file per second, I run into buffer full a lot less often. It is still not as good as the D3 and D300 series,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"the d300 has the same AF module as the D3 series"</em> True, but the performance is night and day different between the two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, I have tested every Nikon DSLR model that uses the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module, 2 DX and 4 FX. The AF performance on all 6 models are similar in my experience. In fact, I prefer it on the two DX bodies (D300 and D300S) since those same 51 AF point cover a much larger portion of the frame.</p>

<p>Isn't this camera the digital FE/FM we were all asking for a few years ago?</p>

<p>Telegraphing my experience in keeping the D200 too long to recover value from it, I say now is the time to sell your D300, with the D300s not far behind. Like it or not, the evolution of digital camera bodies make this an important ownership strategy from a cost/value perspective.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i noticed the same thing with the soft images when i used my 70-200f/2.8 but after i fine tuned the camera to the lens, it fixed the problem. i downloaded a focus chart and spent about an hour or so fine tunning it. i have come to realize that this is pretty common practice for all my dslr's now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you elaborate on your fine tuning process?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am curious if anyone can tell how is the viewfinder of D7000 in comparison with D300 and D700. Is it easier of harder to do manual focus on it? The green dot includes arrows like in D700 or not (like D300)?<br /> I am quite tired waiting a little FX camera from Nikon for street/travel... so I am considering a D7000... but I want a lightweight kit like: 24/2.8 AIS, 35/2 AF-D and 105/2.5 AIS and I'm not sure if I can deal with MF on D7000. Any first hand experience would be appreciated!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have the D7000, but I do have the D300 and the D700. I've compared the D7000 to my D300 and, consistent with the specifications, they do indeed have practically the same viewfinder. I could tell little difference.</p>

<p>With regards to manual focusing, I've found my D300 very hard to focus fast MF glass - my 200/4 is tough at f/4 and my 132/2 AIS hopeless at f/2 or f/2.8. I even have a Katzeye screen for my D300.<br>

When I got my D700 a few weeks ago everything changed. My ability to focus my MF glass was way way better. This is due to two things:<br>

(1) The AF confirmation dot of the D700 is far more discerning. I.e., there is far less play in the focus ring where the AF dot will illuminate. My D300 had a wide range of focus that would illuminate the AF confirmation dot - it was almost totally useless.<br>

(2) The effective f-stop of the D700 viewfinder is at least one stop faster than my D300. The D300 OVF shows the image at about f/4 to f/5.6 or so while the D700 is reported to be f/2.8-f/4, thus it's far easier to see the image go in and out of focus with the D700 viewfinder than with the D300. The apparent size of the image in the D700 also helps considerably.</p>

<p>With the same lenses I've found that my accuracy in manually focusing my 40/2, 50/1.2, 105/2.5, 135/2, and 200/4 is above 80% with the D700 while it was around 25% with my D300.</p>

<p>That's my experience anyways. Younger eyes (I'm 45) may have a much easier time with the D7000/D300 viewfinders.</p>

<p>John</p>