Time to trade in one of my D300's for a D7100?

<p>I've read three reviews on the D7100 (one on this website) but I am on the fence whether to sell one of my old D300's and upgrade to the D7100.<br>

<br /> I shoot sports mostly. Professionally 5Ks, marathons, mud runs, sports journalism, etc. So I like the reach the cropped sensor gives me. In poor lighting conditions is where i would hope a stop or two would make a difference in noise at that level.<br>

<br /> So...I have the money, I just don't want to waste it... if I will really not see much of a difference in IQ or noise or both. Don't want to be disappointed.<br>

<br /> What am I missing? Anyone out there upgraded to the D7100 who shot thousands and thousands of photos like I did on my D300s. (the one I am considering selling has about 78K actuations so I'd like to take the opportunity to possibly upgrade).</p>

<p>Help me out!<br /> Oh....and most of my lenses are fast (f2.8s and f1.4s)</p>

<p>I have used a D300, then a D7100. There is a difference at ISO >800 in favor of the D7100. D7100 also has much stronger AF especially in dim light. The only real downside to D7100 is the buffer if shooting NEF, and you like to squeeze off a string of rapid shots. Otherwise, D7100 all the way.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I added a D7100 to my bag a few months back - but kept my two D300 bodies (one is at 101+k clicks and the other at some 59k). The D7100 is lighter and quieter; the sensor is clearly better and you can expect to get about 1 stop improvement. However, the weak spot of the D7100 is the shallow buffer - with a fast SD card (95MB/s) the buffer never really fills up but the camera slows down after a burst of about 1s; it continues at a much reduced rate virtually forever (talking RAW here). Forget using any slow SD card - it's unbearable.<br /> <br /> I use the camera with the AF-S 80-400 mostly - and had to add the battery grip for better handling (the camera body is just too small). Also, there is very little space between the grip and the tripod collar (I changed to the RRS one). Personally, I am not a friend of the mode dial and would very much have preferred the mode button like on the D300. The main reason for adding the D7100 (I intentionally don't call it an upgrade because it is only in some aspects and in others, its a clear step down) was that the 80-400 doesn't play nice on my D300 - I have a lot of images of airplanes in flight that are just slightly OOF when shooting a burst, with the occasional one tack sharp. Haven't had the issue with the D7100.<br /> <br /> I don't change ISO much when out shooting - being in AutoISO most of the time. If I would, then the location of the ISO button would drive me bonkers quickly - because it quite easy to mix it up with the QUAL button and then you are shooting JPEG basic before you realized that you didn't change the ISO but the QUAL. It's a lot harder to make that mistake with the button layout of the D300.</p>

<p>It is quite possible that a D7200 will be announced within a few weeks if not days - so it might be prudent to wait and see what transpires. I purchased my D7100 refurbished - with the savings being another incentive for the purchase.</p>

<p>There is a significant difference in handling between the two cameras - but luckily for what I do and how I set them up - some of those differences are of no relevance to me - but YMMV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is quite possible that a D7200 will be announced within a few weeks if not days</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dieter is spending too much time on those rumor sites. :-)</p>

<p>For sports photography, I think you are better off moving to FX for the low-light capability, assuming that you sometimes shoot night sports and/or indoor sports. Humans are relative large subjects so that the advantage of DX is not as important. A few years ago when the D300 was a new camera, the cost for FX used to be very high. The D300 is now approaching 8 years old, and the cost for FX has dropped drastically, especially if you are willing to buy used.</p>

<p>If may be a different story if you only shoot outdoor sports with plenty of light.</p>

<p>thanks so far.<br>

70% is outdoor with good light.<br>

30% indoor or night with sometimes terrible lighting.</p>

 

<p>If all your glass is DX, then the D7100 might be the better way to go. But if your glass will work on an FX camera, I would give serious consideration to the D750. I think FX is the way to go for sports.</p>

I've been using a pair of D7100s for almost everything, I would say several thousand on one body, a few hundred on the

other. I went from D200 and D5100. All I can say is I still like the big lenses like my old 400mm 3.5 on the D200 it just

feels right to me. On D7100 180mm screw drive works good, VERY sharp. I like the 20mm 1.8 a lot.

<p>I've had this issue, but I also have a D700. The D300 is lovely and I've kept both. I've been naughty and bought a Fuji X-E2 with the 18-55. I'm still finding my way round it. The only obvious downside is the electronic viewfinder, especially since I wear glasses. But the image quality is extremely good. I've had the results described as stunning. The camera and lens feel very 'right'.</p>

<p>The two Nikons certainly will still have their place, but for walking round the Fuji has much to be said for it. With advancing age and health problems, the weight of equipment is a material factor. I will shortly get the 55-200 for the Fuji. That, plus a flash gun, will still provide an outfit lighter than just the D300 and a heavy lens.</p>

<p>By chance I happened to get out an F4, a most lovely camera, but what a weight. I looked at that, and looked at the Fuji, and reflected on what they would respectively do. But such is progress.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you really like the D300 and want a bit of a 'boost', you may want to consider a D3 (used obviously) which is very, very similar to the D300. You will get a nice performance boost and an small increase in low light IQ. IMHO, you might be happier with the feel and performance of a D3 over a D7???.</p>

<p>When it comes to high ISO IQ, the D300 and D7100 are not that far off from each other (when comparing identically processed RAW files - the D7100 has a small advantage). In-camera JPGS are far improved with the D7100 over the D300.</p>

<p>I like the D7100 a lot but its buffer is small and makes it frustrating to use for fast action situations. If you want better image quality (in particular, in low light but also otherwise) an FX camera such as the D750 would seem a better option although its buffer is not huge, either, but I think it is adequate and with adjustment of settings (e.g. use 12-bit compressed NEF instead of 14-bit uncompressed or lossless compressed) it should be ok. There are now some new compact telephoto options such as the PF 300/4 that you may consider if you need some portable reach.</p>

<p>I owned a couple of D300s for four years and a D7100 for about a year or so. I don't think it's the right camera for your needs for a couple of reasons. </p>

<p>The small buffer is one problem, though it was never a problem for me because I didn't shoot sports much with it and used JPEG when I needed 6FPS (which was almost never).</p>

<p>Ergonomics are a larger problem, especially if you have fast, heavy lenses. If you are used to getting a nice healthy grip on a D300 with a 70-200 you will be disappointed. I have small hands and even so my pinky slipped off and I just never felt comfortable with a heavy lens attached. You could pick up a battery grip to mitigate the problem, but those are pricey.</p>

<p>There is also a few anecdotal issues I had with my D7100. It just didn't work as well with CLS or TTL flash for me. I had this occasional problem where the first exposure would be off, then the second shot would be fine without changing any settings or the composition. I used TTL bounce a lot as my daughter was born shortly after purchasing the camera and it was pretty annoying. I also had a very odd issue (might be able to chalk it up to the memory card) where after taking the shot the LCD showed the image but it was not written on the card. When that occurred the problem would repeat until I turned it off and on again.</p>

<p>Finally, the camera just didn't resonate with me the way my D300s or my current D750 does. Especially the D750. Size, weight, ergonomics, performance, layout are perfect for me. The exposures are dead on and the skin tones and image quality are just really great. The mode dial/ISO button things that people sometimes mention don't bother me because I'm always in Manual and frequently in Auto-ISO using +/- exposure compensation. You seem like you would use a camera for a long time it might be a good time to consider full frame. I don't know what lenses you've invested in and if it makes sense for you but I'm really glad I did. </p>

<p>The OP listed his equipment almost a year ago on March 15 last year: http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00cSAQ<br>

That list could be a bit out of date. But switching to FX may indeed demand some lenses also, such as perhaps a 300mm/f4 for sports. That additional cost may not be trivial.</p>

<p>The problem is that the D300 doesn't worth much in the used market any more, and the D7100 is deeply discounted as an "old" model. I would expect an update to the D7100 in the coming months, but I am not aware of any firm dates and features. I am curious that Nikon raised the price by $100 from the D5300 to D5500. Therefore, Nikon maybe positioning the successor to the D7100 a bit higher to better match against Canon's 7D Mark II. Time will tell. However, I wouldn't read too much into the rumors that some D7200 is imminent or those so called "D400" and "D9300" nonsense that has been proven wrong time after time.</p>

<p>Well, that does make a difference.</p>

<p>If I was OP <strong>on a budget</strong> I'd wait to see how capable the replacement is. Even if that one is not for you the price on the D7100 may drop when it comes out. OR get a refurbished D7100 now AND pick up the replacement when it comes out. Then you have a less expensive back up. I miss the days when I had 2 bodies. That is an extremely odd sentence out of context...</p>

<p>If I was OP <strong>with money to burn</strong> I'd liquidate one D300 and DX lenses and get a D750, 24-105 F4, 16-35 F4 or whatever else and keep a D300 for back up and to one day preserve it in carbonite for eternity as a shrine to the golden days of Nikon DX cameras.</p>

<p>He kind of sounds like he wants to spend some money and be very content for awhile rather than save some money and live with regret, but then again I don't really know him.</p>

<p>Irrespective of the reliability of rumours, I'd not think of buying an elderly but current camera like the D7100 when there's a big camera show starting in just over a week, at least when Nikon hasn't yet announced anything for it. I appreciate I say this as someone planning to upgrade my camera tomorrow, but that's because a rebate is about to expire, and I'd be truly astonished (and annoyed) if the D810 got replaced already. Either there will be a better successor to the D300 coming than the D7100 which you might prefer, or the D7100 price will drop through the floor when a replacement is announced which would make it a better deal, or nothing will happen and you've only lost a week.</p>

<p>I rarely shoot raw because the market for most of my prints/digital is ton and gun and/or newspaper/publication quality. So I shoot .jpg fine most of the time... Bottom line, don't think the small cache limit would affect me much. I'm more interested in less noise and the AF being at least as good as the D300 and still using my DX lenses... no need here to upset the applecart to go FX. </p>

<p><< Bottom line, don't think the small cache limit would affect me much. I'm more interested in less noise and the AF being at least as good as the D300 and still using my DX lenses... no need here to upset the applecart to go FX.>></p>

<p>The AF on the D7100 paired with Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR is rocket fast! It will even focus using only moonlight. It has better low light AF ability than my D800E.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Wade:</p>

<p>I sold my d300 to buy the 7100 on my way to the d810. The only things I truly miss about the d300 is its rugged build and the way it fit in my hands. I do not shoot sports any more so the fps. and buffer size were not an issue. The low light performance and the auto focus with the d7100 are superior to the d300 IMHO. The friend who purchased the d300 loves it to death especially when he is shooting rodeo and other sports with the battery grip attached. </p>

<p>The d7100 now serves as backup to the d810 and all is well with my world.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

The buffer issue makes me say no to the d7100 compared to the d 300s. I own d d810 and still use my trusty d 300s

when I need focal length reach and fast frames per second. Buying new, go for the d810 over the d750 and d7100.

 

Joe smith

P

<blockquote>

<p>d 300s when I need focal length reach and fast frames per second</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DX crop on the D810 has more MP than the D300S - and 7fps vs 8fps (with MB-D10 grip and appropriate batteries, not the standard EN-EL3e) isn't much of a difference IMO.</p>