D7000 that much better than the D300?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by sanford, Feb 2, 2011.

  1. 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.
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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 :)
     
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    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.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. i will disagree with shun and even go as far as to say that the auto focus is faster in the d7000.​
    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.
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. Javier,
    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.
    Just to be sure, I haven't seen a D7000 yet, so I cannot make the direct comparison.
     
  19. 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)?
    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!
     
  20. 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.
    If you believe DxOMark then yes the D7000 sensor is demonstrably better than the D300/300s. 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.
    "the d300 has the same AF module as the D3 series" True, but the performance is night and day different between the two.
    "Is the D7000 demonstratively better than the D300 at base and higher ISO?" 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.
     
  21. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    What is possibly more important [to me] is how fast the buffer clears. Is 11 enough?​
    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.
    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,
    "the d300 has the same AF module as the D3 series" True, but the performance is night and day different between the two.​
    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.
     
  22. Isn't this camera the digital FE/FM we were all asking for a few years ago?
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. 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.​
    Can you elaborate on your fine tuning process?
     
  25. 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)?
    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!​
    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.
    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.
    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:
    (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.
    (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.
    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.
    That's my experience anyways. Younger eyes (I'm 45) may have a much easier time with the D7000/D300 viewfinders.
    John
     
  26. Hi John,
    Your eyes are 4 yrs younger than mines... :)
    I have exactly the same experience with D700/D300 regarding MFing and that's why I asked the question regarding D7000 viewfinder. For me, on D700 the arrows are a great help too when I need to focus fast... so at least I hope D7000 have arrows.
    I really do not know why the engineers from Nikon does not make bodies with optionally parts... i.e. viewfinders... to have options when purchase... between ordinary viewfinders and some superbright (expensive) versions. Many people like you and me would have a much better experience this way... Why only the lens have to be interchangable in DSLRs? These people from RD department need a kick in the ass to work harder... :( at least IMHO.
     
  27. No. D300 still delivers overall better image quality and more detail than D7000, when shooting each at base ISO. See the dpreview.com review of the D7000 for more info. Specifically, this page. Move the sample over to the watch in the lower righthand corner of the test image. Note how the D300 is able to render the watch hands beveled at the top, with a bright and dark side. The D7000 just glosses over this detail and renders the hands as a bright silver line. D300 can render more fine detail due to its superior imaging algorithm. D7000 is not in the same league as D300, despite its higher megapixel count and better high ISO performance.
     
  28. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    No. D300 still delivers overall better image quality and more detail than D7000, when shooting each at base ISO.​
    Dave, have you ever used a D7000 at all?
     
  29. 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.​
    Eric, I do not know about modules and I am not that technically savy. All I know is what I know and have seen for myself. But like Shun has been saying, technology has progressed forward and so I am not surprised. To be honest, I can only imagine how good the true replacement for the D300 and D3 will be like.
     
  30. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    When I shoot sports or wildlife action, I typically use 21 AF points similar to what Wouter describes above, and I am very conscious that my starting AF point is a cross type such that my initial focus is good, and then I let AF-C/Dynamic AF take care of the focusing.

    That is why the 15 cross-type AF points on the Multi-CAM 3500 is superior to the Multi-CAM 4800 (9 cross-type AF points) on the D7000, where you have more limitations on initial AF point selection. Again, Nikon puts the same Multi-CAM 3500 on DX and FX bodies. On FX, the 51 AF points are too close to the center. That was an issue I pointed out 3 years ago when I reviewed the D3 for photo.net. Hopefully Nikon will improve on that in the D4 product cycle.
     
  31. I had a chance to very briefly compare the AF speed of my D300 against the D7000 in the local pro shop here in Seattle using my 80-200AFS and my 16-85AFS. With both lenses the D7000 was equal to the D300 when the subject had adequate light - i.e., the acquisition and focusing time, especially if using just the center AF point were not noticeably different. Also, the time to rack the focusing from min to infinity seemed the same on both cameras, so it seems the D7000 is able to provide the same power to the AF motors that the D300 does, at least for these two lenses.
    BUT
    When I tried focusing using either multi-point AF or center point AF on any subject that was kind of dim, then the D300 showed it was better. The D7000 would eventually find focus, but it hesitated and occasionally would not lock on. The D300 never missed a beat - no hesitation and never failed to lock focus.
    So, my experience seems to be consistent with some other reports that the D7000 is on par with the D300 for well lit subjects, but the D300 seems to be better in low light situations.
    My 2 cents at least.
    I will likely swap out my D300 for the D7000 mostly for the size & weight reduction - especially now that I've got a D700. The D7000 will be the more casual body that is smaller and lighter while the D700 will be the wide angle, manual focus prime, low light camera used more for portraits and landscapes.
    Unless of course if Nikon comes out with an interesting interchangeable lens DX mirrorless camera in the next coming months then the D7000 might not ever be bought . . . .
    John
     
  32. I say now is the time to sell your D300, with the D300s not far behind.​
    and replace it with what?
     
  33. "Isn't this camera the digital FE/FM we were all asking for a few years ago?"
    No. The digital FM will be the same size and look like a FM.
     
  34. "Isn't this camera the digital FE/FM we were all asking for a few years ago?"
    No. The digital FM will be the same size and look like a FM.​
    I don't think it will look like an FM, FE2, FM3A, etc., but it needs to certainly be the size of one.
    It will likely be many years until we have a FX sensor-ed body the size of an FM, but hopefully Nikon's rumored mirrorless entry will be a decent digital FM-like body, especially if they put in a DX sensor and a really good EVF.
    Right now, for me, I'd consider the Panasonic GH1/GH2 to be the closest to a digital FM in terms of size and viewfinder. I've very very tempted to pick up one of these and throw the 14/2.5, 20/1.7 primes on it for a small, very good IQ compact system that has a dedicated VF (an EVF is fine for me).
    However, barring some new sensor or lens technological development, the days of small wide angle primes are likely over (like my 20/2.8 AF-D) for a large sensor- camera.
    John
     
  35. D300 still delivers overall better image quality and more detail than D7000, when shooting each at base ISO. See the dpreview.com review of the D7000 for more info.
    Dave, I have to say that when looking at the dpreview RAW pictures at base ISO, the D7000 seems to resolve detail more clearly to my eye than the D300s. The JPGs seem worse, but I never shoot in-camera JPG (it is obvious from these pictures, why. The finest detail is simply not there.). If I'm not mistaken, dpreview use 50mm lenses for this kind of testing and simply today the Nikon 50's are not their best lenses (though they're very good, they simply have better resolving lenses available at other focal lengths). I tested the D7000 at ISO 100 using a tripod and 200/2 AF-S. The detail at f/4 was simply stunning, though less impressive wide open. I have no doubt that the camera is capable of taking advantage of the extra pixel density when used with good technique, good glass, and sufficiently low ISO.
    My objections to the D7000 are that it uses SD cards, doesn't accept the MC-30 remote, and it utilizes a new generation of batteries (which is not a bad thing in itself, but they are expensive!). Also there is no separate AF-ON button and configuring the AF-L/AE-L button to do AF-ON functionality leaves too little space for my fingers when operating the camera in vertical orientation with grip. My forehead and thumb simply try to occupy the same space. Otherwise I would purchase the D7000 for use as a macro/long lens camera. Nikon has finally fixed the LV "bug" that the mirror comes down and goes back up just before the picture is taking, making it more difficult to use LV for precision focusing in macro and long lens work in the D3 and D700. This and the pixel density make the D7000 very attractive for macro applications. However, given the user interface differences I feel I am better off waiting for another model which retains the accessories (in as far as possible) and user interface similarity with my current cameras.
     
  36. I just got my monthly email from the Nikon store and the D7000 is not even listed under Digital SLR's. Besides, the economy and common sense have my new photographic purchases on hold for the foreseeable future. The D300 should last for years with the little use it gets - a "special occasion" camera for sure.
     
  37. "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."
    Not what I wanted to read. Quite disappointing. Has it come to the point that using your EYES to focus with the finders they give us is now longer an option ? Are we left to simply trust in the firmware and not what we see ?
     
  38. Has it come to the point that using your EYES to focus with the finders they give us is now longer an option ?
    This worries me also. However, Katz Eye Optics and other third parties make screens for most Nikon DSLRs that facilitate focusing by eye. These work well with glass prism-based viewfinders after calibration (the pentamirror types may not be accurate).
     
  39. I bit the bullet last weekend - decided to sell my D50 and D40 and ordered a D7000. It arrived yesterday. It is truly an amazing camera, especially for the price. I have done some basic testing, mainly on focus accuracy high ISO performance. It is excellent with both. To me, it is a 'mini D3'. My initial testing shows IQ to be nearly identical to the D3 at ISO 6400. And noise free at very low ISO. (Going from memory, I believe the D300 shows some noise at very low ISO but of course, after PP, it would likely be difficult to tell them apart.) Differences are slight and only visible when pixel peeping, and even then, they are minimal with the main difference being in sharpness/detail where the D3 has a slight edge. In typical sized prints, you would not see any difference. What an amazing feat! Feature wise, this body shines when compared to the D300.
    Based on these preliminary tests and what I remember of the D300 (been a while since I owed one), I will change my previous response in this thread from no to yes, the D7000 is demonstratively better than the D300 at base and higher ISO.
     
  40. I guess I should add that my comments concerning IQ above are using RAW files processed with DXO software.
     
  41. A quick questions then - so, what is the most important selling point for D7000 ?
     
  42. Size, small w/metal body
     
  43. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I would say these are the most important selling points for the D7000, but keep in mind that some points apply to certain individuals and some don't. For example, some people will find the D7000's small size an advantage; some will find that a disadvantage, and some who are used to the D40 and D3100 will probably find the D7000 "large" and "heavy." That is why Nikon makes many models for different needs:
    • High-quality construction
    • Very good AF system, Multi-CAM 4800 with 39 AF points, 9 cross type
    • 100% viewfinder coverage
    • Best high-ISO results among DX DSLRs
    • Dual SD memory cards
    • Metering with no-CPU AI/AI-S lenses
    • Full 1080p HD video
    • Small size
     
  44. "Size, small w/metal body" - it was already explained somewhere and not challenged, that D7000 has partial metal body. While D300 has a complete box/shell made of metal.
     
  45. This seems to be as good a place as any to ask for an opinion, since many here seem to have both the D7000 and D300S. I have a bunch of Nikon AF-D primes (20 f/2.8, 24 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, 35 f/2.0, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 300 f/4.0) that have been sitting unused in a cabinet since I switched to digital in mid-2007. For various reasons I went with Pentax, which I really like, and don't plan to switch systems.
    I would like to get a Nikon dSLR body to use with those lenses though, particularly the 300 f/4.0 and the 85 f/1.8. While the rest of the lenses I have are fairly light, those 2 are somewhat heavy. I was using the 300 on an F100, shooting it mostly handheld at the zoo, and it worked great. With the extra magnification I figure I'll probably have to dig out my monopod and get used to using it. The 300 does have a tripod collar, which is good, so I'm not too worried about the lens mount strength. One other thing, I'll probably never use the video features, and I already have a bunch of SD cards but no CF cards or card reader.
    Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
     
  46. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    For various reasons I went with Pentax, which I really like, and don't plan to switch systems.​
    Sorry, in my opinion, Pentax is not a good choice and you can only hope that they can remain in the DSLR business. But as long as you are happy with them, that is the only thing that matters. In that case you might as well sell those Nikon lenses and focus on one system. Your Nikon lenses are all very common and you should be able to find Pentax equivalents easily.
    I would highly recommend not to get a Nikon DSLR and maintain two incompatible DSLR systems. Either stick with Pentax or sell your Pentax and switch back to Nikon.
     
  47. I see no problem with owning two, three or how ever many camera systems you can afford. I would love to have a Pentax K5 if finances allowed.
     
  48. Frank,
    Get a D7000 and you will be happy as a clam. The one thing that many of these Nikon shooters do not realize is that Pentax Primes are ''IMO'' the best out there. You and I are both prime shooters and I am sure you will agree.
    I have two systems and see no problems. I have a D700, D300s and D7000....In Pentax I have the K100DS and 2 K20Ds (I did sell my K-7) and will get a K-5 as soon as the sensor issue is resolved...The main reason I will stick with Pentax is specifically for the prime lenses that Nikon can't touch....The best part of Nikon is the Auto focus system..Nothing can touch it..The Nikon zooms are also something to behold and there Nikon makes a better zoom than Pentax...So they both have a place in bag.
     
  49. Hey Javier, when are you going to give Micro Four Thirds a shot?
     
  50. Thanks Javier, that was the sort of thing I was looking for. You're right, I like the Pentax for the DA Limited primes, which I like for a travel camera. They are tiny, especially on the K-7 (and maybe a K-5 when the price drops). I rarely use the zooms I have for the Pentax, just in certain situations. The Nikon would be mostly for the AF-D 300 f/4.0, basically for trips to the Zoo, and maybe some zooms in the future.
    Sanford asked about Micro 4/3 - I got an Olympus E-P2 with the 17 f/2.8 a while back. I really like the way the jpgs look right out of the camera, but the ergonomics and low light focusing suck. I can't get used to focus-by-wire either. You never know where infinity is. I like to hold a camera in my hand while walking, with the strap wrapped around my wrist. With these little cameras it is too easy to inadvertently change a setting. It is compact though.
     
  51. sanford, right now i have no plan for a micro 4/3 system for the reasons frank mentioned above. i really love my lx-5 and it is hard to imagine another small compact to be leaps above it. i really had my eye on the fuji x100, but not at $1200.00
     
  52. This seems to be as good a place as any to ask for an opinion, since many here seem to have both the D7000 and D300S. I have a bunch of Nikon AF-D primes (20 f/2.8, 24 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, 35 f/2.0, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 300 f/4.0) that have been sitting unused in a cabinet since I switched to digital in mid-2007. For various reasons I went with Pentax, which I really like, and don't plan to switch systems.​
    Frank, you'll find with a D7000 or any other DX camera you'll be missing lenses on the short end for wide angles.
    20/2.8 - Not terribly interesting FL on DX, best used on FX, though it's not the sharpest in the corners until f/5.6 or so.
    24/2.8 - Same as 20/2.8
    28/2.8 - If it's the AF version it's supposedly not very good. If it's the AIS version it's a very good lens - potentially a "normal" focal length on DX.
    The 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 300/4 AF are good lenses. It looks like you'll be missing something in between the 85 and 300. If you want small and light I'd recommend one of these:
    135/3.5 AIS
    180/2.8 AIS ED or 180/2.8 AF-D
    200/4 AIS
    As far as wide on DX, your choices are very limited in primes. I use a 16/3.5 AI fisheye as a wide prime substitute (the 16/2.8 AIS or AF-D works well too). Otherwise your choice is one of the many WA DX zooms that are made by Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, etc.
    John
     
  53. John, thanks for the feedback. At this point I'm not looking to build up any sort of "complete" Nikon system, more just wondering which of the 2 bodies (D300S or D7000) might be the better choice for using the lenses I have now. I mostly use the 300 f/4.0 for walks around the San Diego Zoo, and that is probably the lens that will get the most use for now. That and maybe also the 24 or 35 as a single-lens "walk around" or "street" set up.
    I have a 15 f/4.0 for my Pentax, and also a 10-17 Fisheye zoom that I really enjoy using, so I'm not worried about not having anything wide for the Nikon. Actually, I'm pretty happy with my very compact travel set up with that brand, using the Limited primes in 15, 21, 40 and 70, I can carry everything in a very small bag, and even have room to toss in a 35 true macro if I want.
     
  54. I have just bought a D7000, to substitute my ageing 2006 D80, that only works well in... Automatic settings ! I was expecting to be able to produce up to A2 quality prints for exhibitions with the more powerful 16Mpix Cmos, as well as grainless night photos, with the much wider ISO range. If the second aim was clearly achieved ( I also very much appreciate the cadence of 6 images/second, for occasional sports or action photos), for the moment I feel a bit frustrated with the neutral of the lack of punch of the rather correct but a bit dull JPEGs. I normally shoot in RAW, but of the programmes I normaly use only DxO Pro 6 has already updated the software to the couple D7000+18-200, and it takes about 6 minutes (!) to process a single picture ! In fact, neither Capture Nx2, nor, less strangely, Apple iPhoto, are already prepared to read and process D7000 RAW files, what seems rather strange, after almost six months from the launching ! It remains the possibility of tuning a bit the native JPEGs. Has anyone of you, more experienced Nikon digital photographers, any tested recipe for doing it ? It might be useful for other recent D7000 owners, while we wait that Nikon finally wakes up, and updates Capture NX2, to read their own RAW files, or gives a little punch to the D7000 firmware.
     
  55. Jose, what version of NX2 are you using? My version of NX2 is V2.2.6, handles D7000 NEF files quite well.
     
  56. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Jose, you need to update your NX2 to the latest version. Mine opens D700 RAW files.
     
  57. I've just cancelled my order for a D7000, having had the chance to try one and find out how small and toy-like it feels in my hands. I'm ordering a D300s instead.
    The D7000 may win (or draw) the race on paper, but it handles far, far worse than my old D70.
     

Share This Page