Nikon D7000 or 300s?

[daniel_mcgarrity1]

<p>Tiffany, this is coming in late, but I'm going to say D7000 due mainly to the quality of the body.<br />However you mentioned a couple of things that might also be address.<br>

Camera size, I'm a person who does like the weight of the camera in my hand and the body to extend down a bit. If it feels a bit small or light I would think of adding the additional battery pack that slings underneath that takes it's own, thank you nikon for having to buy a NEW battery style, battery (I guess to many people had the EL-4 for the D2,D3,D700)</p>

<p>Now as for "never needing video" I'm sort of in the same boat in mind and deed, however I do weddings and portraits, while I could argue a pretty salient point against having to use video INSTEAD of stills during something in my field, you're PJ through and through. When it comes to needing a quick interview or some B footage, all you need is a good Lite Panel small light (less than 300) a good microphone.. and you have your own little interview station, get a gorilla pod to set up the camera and a good 35mm lens (one of the new ones if you can afford it) and you are really ready to rock, and do your own production. I'm sure everyone can tell you how to do your job, but the D7000 in your line of work is a real boon with the new processing power and capabilities of the d300s. Just remember if it's that hand feel for the larger body, remember the battery pack that Nikon sells for the camera..it attaches to the base and provides vertical buttons for when you shoot portrait.<br>

Good Luck.</p>

 

[tiffany_davis1]

<p>Unfortunately, I don't have the option of getting my hands on either camera. If you want to be involved with the school paper, you have to provide your own equipment. In the event that no one can get their hands on a DSLR - there is a Sony H9 to use. <br />My camera is the best we have - and only I touch it. I have a hard time letting people touch my stuff, especially when they only use the Auto mode!<br />I'd really like to have a heavier camera, because I want to get accustomed to carrying heavy equipment and I really need a better grip; but I suppose either one would be heavier than what I am using. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i don't think there is a wrong or right choice here. both are great cameras and will be fine for PJ work. i would think the 1080p of the d7000 would be an advantage for video/multimedia, and the faster FPS of the d300s will be better for sports/action. the d300s will balance better with longer lenses, especially if you add the grip. but depending on your style, a smaller/lighter camera may be advantageous.</p>

<p>actually, if i were you, i'd think about what lenses you will be using. if getting a d7000 means more $$ for better-than-kit-lens glass, that might be a deciding factor.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>This is a wonderful discussion. The many fine points of both cameras have been throughly discussed. The age of digital here, and it is wonderful.</p>

<p>I began shooting with Nikkormats and Nikon F's in the late '60ds, and at the time neither of mine had a winder or a motor drive. Neither had auto focus or auto metering -- the Ftn Nikon had match meter exposure, and so did the Nikkormat Ftn. </p>

<p>Until the last few years, so much of this discussion would have seemed science fiction . . . completely futuristic.</p>

<p>I am supremely happy with Nikon's digital cameras; I have used them, including a whole host of D300s (at least 10 now), for several years and find little fault with them at all, and the increased abilities of Nikon and other cameras are simply stunning.</p>

<p>Frankly, though, you can take a Pulitzer-winning photo with a $50 film camera and lens bought on E-Bay. </p>

<p>Just choose any old brand (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and so on) Single Lens Reflex of 40-year-old vintage, make sure its seals are working, pop in some film and away you go. They all had pretty darn good lenses standard.</p>

<p>It's nice to get hung up on the relative niceties of this or that wonderful, really quite affordable digital camera from Nikon, but no matter what, they're all providing amazing results compared to what was available even a decade ago.</p>

<p>Get what you choose, and be thankful there are so many wonderful features to choose from. Quite a few of these feature didn't exist even a short time ago, such as video and in the case of the D7000 full HD continuous auto-focus video at full 1080p.</p>

<p>You sound like a dedicated shooter if you would shoot without pay for two years as an intern, and if a newspaper (they are perpetually broke these days) will buy you a camera, and you won't let anybody touch a certain camera if they use it in 'auto' mode, you sound like a potentially great employee. Congratulations on getting the rarest of jobs a photographer's job in an era of newspaper downsizing.</p>

<p>It's important to remember that after you've mastered the learning curve with any camera, almost any modern camera will do the job and do it handily. Nikon makes wonderful cameras, and frankly I think almost any good, top-level photographer on this service could make world class photos with your present camera, making allowances of differences in frames per second and for the auto focus differences.</p>

<p>While there are arguments of the advantages of 12 vs. 16 megapixels, many photojournalists still prize their D2h and D2Hs Nikons with their fat pixels, because they would shoot 8 frames per second, practically nonstop, and for newspaper work no one has made any serious claims that 4 megapixels was insufficient. </p>

<p>If you're going to do magazine shooting, fine art, big blowups for exhibition, prints, etc., that's different, but 4 megapixels seems adequate for work you're aiming at. </p>

<p>The D7000's limit, even with battery pack is six frames per second, whereas the D300s with battery pack, outfitted with either 'AA' batteries (which exhaust quickly) or the large and heavy EN-EL4 or EN-EL4a batteries in a battery booster (not the EN-El3e) and a $39 (list) holder, can boost the D300s fps rate to eight from six, and that might be important for sports, or even that occasional tornado. </p>

<p>The D2Hs, according to a quick google.com search listed at $5,900 about seven years ago, so think of how 'futuristic' this whole discussion might have seemed in 2003. You can buy one now for $500, I just saw on the web.</p>

<p>Frankly no matter how much one or the other 'feature' or 'personal characteristic' 'fits' with you, a digital photographer from 2003 would have viewed this whole discussion as very, very futuristic (even if predictable).</p>

<p>The most important accessory you can get, is the eye behind the viewfinder, and the most important durability factor is the heart that drives that eye.</p>

<p>You sound like you have both.</p>

<p>With those, you're assured of great photos almost no matter what equipment you use.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

[photo11]

<p>John, as a 46 year veteran in photography: thanks’ for putting this thread into prospective.</p>

[anand_dhupkar]

<p>Based on the inputs that D7000 can give max 6 FPS whereas D300s gives 8 FPS.<br>

In such cases, is it possibility to use the video mode and select single frame from the video shoot ? What is the editor that can be used for the video shot with D7000 ?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>is it possibility to use the video mode and select single frame from the video shoot ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes you can, but even though you capture 1080p HD video on the D7000, each frame is 1920x1080, with JPEG basic quality. Moreover, when shooting video, the shutter speed is often on the slow side and each still frame will likely show some motion blur, which is not a problem and in fact may be desireable when you watch it as video. When you look at each frame as a still image, the quality may appear to be very poor.</p>

<p>P.S. John Crosley's info on the D2Hs is quite off, but that is not really related to the OP's topic.</p>

[leericks]

<p>John Crosley's information on the D2Hs is NOT off. He is quite correct that 4 MP is more than enough for a newspaper shooter. I publish D2Hs shots all of the time and have for years. It is also correct that it can be had for $500.00. I made that case earlier.</p>

<p>For the newspaper shooter there are few cameras that are better. Add to the discussion that this $500.00 camera is so strong you can pound nails with it, so tight you can shoot in the rain and has the utterly indispensible convenience of voice annotation and I would like someone to make the case that either the D300 or D7000 could hold a candle to it for newspaper work. In fact. The lack of voice annotation is so inconvenient that I rarely use the D300s unless I am shooting in very low light. I prefer the D2H or sometimes the D2X. The D3x, while a fine camera is far to expensive for most news hacks.</p>

<p>Until you have lost your notebook and rendered your entire shoot useless, or fumbled for a pen and paper in the rain or an angry crowd, you will never truly appreciate the convenience of voice memo. </p>

<p>If I were her I would own a D2Hs. If for no other reason than the shear joy of using it. </p>

<p> </p>

[tiffany_davis1]

<p>Well, it's been decided between my bosses and my co-workers that I'll be getting the D300s. They all agree that it will get me prepared (weight wise) for my future camera. The news station uses the Nikon D3X. <br />The reason why I am not worried about the video feature is because I don't do videos. The way it works for me is I always travel with a reporter, and/or a cameraman. I simply take photos. They don't have me do anything with recording - because I'm deaf. <br />I have an eidetic memory, so that makes up for my lack of hearing. Though I do still take down notes. <br /><br />Now I am stuck on deciding what glass I want. Any suggestions in that department?</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>These lenses are what I chose for event, portrait, street photography (I tend to go for the best of the less expensive lenses); Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC (vibration control does help, about $650), Sigma APO 50-150 f/2.8 HSM (wish it had optical stabilization, about $750). I always use two matching camera bodies with these lenses to cover the equivalent of the long standing pro focal length of 24-200mm (Tamron = 25.5-75, Sigma = 75-225).</p>

<p>On the side I have the original Tokina 12-24 f/4 (for less needed wide angle, built like a tank, new version has focus motor, about $500), just got a Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 for well lit sports (on a monopod, about $900), and the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro (for portraits and macros, about $400).</p>

<p>I'm sure many will suggest fast prime lenses (not a zoom) like the 35, 50mm and 85 f/1.8 (or 1.4, expensive), but for the kind of work your talking about, a zoom will be more useful and need lens changes less often.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Off Subject: Tiffany, I was just looking at the App Store for an ASL application for my iPhone. I learned finger spelling many years ago, and now with a deaf classmate on the high school reunion committee that I head, I thought I would bone up on it and learn more.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>John Crosley's information on the D2Hs is NOT off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lee, when I said John Crosley is off, you can take that to the bank. First of all, it was the D2H that was introduced in July 2003, not the D2Hs. The original price was around $3300, not $5900. To be blunt, the original D2H was a disaster. In just over a year, Nikon dumped all of them in a firesale at $2000 at the end of 2004 and quickly replaced it with the D2Hs in early 2005, still 4MP and still around $3500 or so. But at that time Canon totally dominated Nikon among news/sports photographers.</p>

<p>Perhaps 4MP is sufficient for newspaper work, but somehow Tiffany's newspaper uses a 24MP D3X. Go figure.</p>

[ken a.]

<p>What focal lengths do you currently like to shoot at? For your type of work, I would suggest a Nikon f/2.8 zoom or two that covers your desired range (and budget). And, give some consideration for a few fast primes if need be. At the least, make sure you have a "plastic fantastic" 50mm f/1.8 in your kit. They cost next to nothing, take up almost no room in a bag, and are reasonably sharp when stopped down a bit. Its like an emergency lens " insurance policy" in your bag.<br>

All the best,</p>

<p>--Ken</p>

[leericks]

<p>I see what you mean. I was thinking about using the camera in the field not the historical data. You are correct. Canon was ascendent at the time but so much of the camera choice for an organization revolved around existing equipment that I don't know many organizations that changed from Nikon to Canon. When you have a workroom full of fast glass it is hard to dump it all for a few features. In the area where I work there is only one news operation that shot and continues to shoot Canon. Nikon was behind a bit but I think not dominated by Canon. </p>

<p>It is curious that they would want to use a 24 mp camera for sure. Her workflow will be a challenge unless she dials-down a bunch. Her workflow is going to be fun. If she shoots raw or 14 bit and throws in a jpeg for good measure she will be working with over 30 MB files. Even if she dials down to JPEG fine she would be handling about 7 MB files. What a pain in the behind. With the largest files she will be shooting at just under 2FPS though she could again dial her camera down and get the FPS up to 7 but what is the point of carrying such an expensive piece of equipment if you are not going to use its capabilities? She would be far better off with a D300 and grip as far as workflow is concerned. She had better hope her organization is not using old computers or she will spend many extra hours at the computer trying to sort through her work. As for storing it.......</p>

<p>I suppose it is hard for any photographer to turn down such a beautiful camera as the D3x. It is truly a great camera and on a very rare occasion she might use some of its more advanced features including those massive files. My point is that if we assume a limited budget of some kind she needs to look at the whole package. If spending the $8K on the body means, for example, that she doesn't not have a 70-200 AFS Vr and 24 - 70 F2.8 lens then she would be making a very bad spending choice. </p>

<p>There are people for whom the most expensive camera is beyond a waste. It can be the wrong tool for the job. Sure she can dial up DX in the camera but then her 24 - 70 becomes a 36 - 105 and she will have to carry another wider lens to get wide enough for many of her stories for example. An awful lot of decision about which camera to carry as a PJ is convenience. Two bodies and two lenses on your person is ideal. For short assignments it does not matter much but for long events these things can get pretty heavy. And there are situations where you do not want to be seen carrying a ton of gear. </p>

<p>And Shun I have been a working newspaper and magazine photojournalist for a very long time. You can take that to the bank. </p>

[tiffany_davis1]

<p>The photographers at the newspaper use the D700. It's the news station that uses the D3X. <br />I'll be at the news station. Don't worry, Lee. The computers I've been working on (as well as the rest of the guys) are all brand new iMacs.<br />This is where my eidetic memory helps. If I see a shot I like or want to use, I remember it - and then it's easier to sort through all of my work. <br />When the time comes and they upgrade me to the D3X, I'll have my choice in an array of lenses. <br />Right now, I just want something to appease my bosses, and get the other PJ's off my back a little. </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Shun Cheung,</p>

<p>Whether one uses a 24 megapixel camera or not, many newspaper photojournalists have raved for years about the D2Hs for its merits as a photojournalist's camera.</p>

<p>The price information, even if wrong, appeared to come from a Nikon archive web site. If wrong, it is not intentionally so, but it may be you are quoting 'street' price and my source (believe to be a Nikon archived source) may have been full list. If I am wrong, thanks for the correction.</p>

<p>At 6 megapixels the D70 produced at lower ISOs some extremely good photos, and at 4 megapixels, photojournalists have raved over the D2Hs. Whether or not you agree, the claim that others use higher resolution cameras for newspaper work may just allow them to crop good images from bad ones and still get decent quality crops. Newspaper reproduction is notoriously low quality, except in certain Sunday Magazines. Of course new dslrs have wonderful new features (see below) and produce better yield (also see below).</p>

<p>I knew one newspaper photographer who shot sports using a Rolleiflex. She got huge 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 images, with flash, then cropped tiny little action images from them, and the images she cropped out were pretty good. </p>

<p>I abhorred her shooting technique and (we'll call her Marilyn) I thought was a horible photographer, but good in the darkroom as a tech or image salvager. Frankly she didn't know the first thing about shooting other than to get a proper flash exposure and to point the camera, but she held a photographer's slot on a pretty good newspaper where the publisher only wanted output and didn't care how it came about. </p>

<p>Other photographers snickered at her skills, but her photos often appeared on front pages or front sports pages and weren't bad at all. She'd totally fail with a single lens reflex camera unless it were 24 mp and she could crop like crazy if she were shooting today.</p>

<p>It's wonderful to have 24 megapixels, though 12 mp has been a 'sweet spot' for a long time, and there have been few complaints, unless one wants to blow up and supersize or make lots of small crops.</p>

<p>I LOVE great and wonderful new equipment. I use it almost exclusively. I am not some nostalgic old fart who just loves the good old days; I would love to have a bag full of Nikon D3s and D3Xs and maybe a few D7000s for backup plus my trusty D300s.</p>

<p>To heck with the old days; they weren't that good.</p>

<p>As to prices, the $500 price came off of a recent listing 'for sale' and appears well grounded. As to the other, I am always happy to defer to someone with better knowledge; I can always make an error, but never intentionally so. The high price quoted seemed to be from a reliable primary source, not some fly-by-night secondary source, but then sometimes interpreting sources can get tricky on the Internet, and I always welcome corrections.</p>

<p>The point is to get accurate information; even the best writers have editors to ensure that their writing is on point and their best. Thank you for challenging the price figure; it will cause others not to take what is written as Gospel, though I do research before I write.</p>

<p>As to the suitability of the D2Hs, I repeated the opinions of others whom I have known and trusted, and similar opinions have been voiced by photojournalists on threads on this site as well. </p>

<p>I am not wedded to the idea that the D2Hs is a supergreat camera, but it does have numerous photojournalist aficionados. (Witness the supporting comment above!) Its supporters often are highly vocal as well. (That camera is NOT suited for Tiffany 's proposed dual use, in any case, but was mentioned in a certain context only to help make a point which I believe to be valid.</p>

<p>I do know that the more features and the better features incorporated into a modern dslr, the higher my 'yield' of good, usable photos from any particular photo session, and that is a definite PLUS in favor of newer cameras, particularly the newer autofocus systems and especially the sophistication of Nikon focus tracking these days. Same with high iso sensors.</p>

<p>I love native 14 bit depth capture of the D700, etc., and the tonalities one can work with, with no loss of shooting speed, versus, say the D300 which slowed considerably when shooting 14-bit vs. 12-bit.</p>

<p>That being said, a great camera in the hands of a beginner can take great photos if one looks at image quality only, but it's 'the eye' that makes the photos in the end, and if push came to shove, I'd put my money on a photographer with experience and 'the eye' no matter what camera he/she chose, over someone with less experience and without 'the eye'.</p>

<p>Does that make sense?</p>

<p>It sounds like Tiffany has 'the eye', which sometimes people seem to be born with and may be a special gift.</p>

<p>I'd bet that from her choice, she cannot make a 'bad' choice from the two, but one only slightly less better or slightly more better (good English, hunh?)</p>

<p>with respect,</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>john. it appears tiffany's choice has already been made.</p>

<p>and the d300s isn't slightly less or more better, it's a case of apples and oranges as either body can be viewed as more or less, depending on how you view them.</p>

<p>in any event, shooting PJ stuff, i quickly learned to nail exposures in jpeg mode simply because you dont always have time to go through hundreds of RAW images on deadline. the most important part of this is getting WB right, since that's what you would be adjusting the most in RAW.</p>

<p>as for 4mp vs. 12 or 24, well...4mb is sufficient for web viewing, but for print or printing, larger is better. agree 12mp is a sweet spot--especially for DX as larger may outresolve certain lenses--and it seems D3x might be overkill for PJ work.</p>

<p>on to lenses: mike kohan has some good advice on glass, i've owned or currently own many of his picks: tamron 17-50, tokina 12-24, sigma 50-150. nikon 17-55 of course has better build and is slightly faster to focus, also more expensive and heavier.70-200 VR is the best if you can swing it, but the 50-150 is about as fast to focus (though more jittery in AF-C) and has pretty darn good optics in a lighter package. for the price it shouldn't be as close to the 70-200 II as it is, but then again, no VR.</p>

<p>personally, i find for event shooting it's nice not to be weighted down too much. sometimes i forgo the FX camera and pro lens and just take a DX body and compact zoom for this reason. but on a d300s, you can balance bigger lenses if you have to. i would definitely get the grip option, not just for the faster fps, but also because you can extend battery life.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Guys, Tiffany's original question was whether she should get a D7000 or D300S for newspaper work today, in December 2010.</p>

<p>Now she has decided, along with her bosses, on a D300S, her next question is about lenses. So please focus your answer on the suitable lenses for a D300S. The camera body part is done, regardless of whether you personally agree with that choice or not.</p>

[leericks]

<p>This seems to be an unanswerable question. Tif said: </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When the time comes and they upgrade me to the D3X, I'll have my choice in an array of lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what to do? How do you advise lenses that, it would appear, she only has to use for a year and then has the treasure chest opened to her?<br />So is money no object? If so then I would advise, as a minimum the 70-200 AFS VR II and the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S. She might add the 50mm F1.4 just to have that middle spot handled. She has not mentioned flash either. If she does not have one she will need at least one SB-900. How can you cover news conferences and other events without a good flash? </p>

<p>So there is a nice kit to "tide her over":</p>

<p>D300s<br>

70-200 AFS VRII Nikkor<br>

17-35 AFS F2.8 Nikkor<br>

50mm F1.4 nikkor<br>

SB-900 Nikon Speedlight</p>

<p>There you go Tiffany. Pony up the $5686.90 and you can squeak by until next year when you will have some REAL equipment;)</p>

<p>If money IS an object then let us know what the budget is and we can take a real stab at it. </p>

[tiffany_davis1]

<p>My budget is only $3,500. <br />I do have one flash, it's a SB-600 Nikon Speedlight. So far, it has served me well.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[photo5]

<p>Tiffany, I'd look at lenses from Sigma or Tamron instead of Nikon, to save some money. The SB-600 is a pretty small flash, not great for group photos, etc. </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I use an SB-600 for group shots and it works very well (I actually have three for remote setups as well).</p>

[leericks]

<p>Ok. Here goes.</p>

<p>You need a standard fast zoom. <br />Tamron SP AF 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di-II VC</p>

<p>This lens gets you fast for not too much money and will be fine as a backup for your D300s when you get the new camera. It has VC (VR) and is pretty sharp. Well made and 1/3 the price of the Nikkor. $549.00 (after $100.00 rebate)</p>

<p>Then the indispensible lens for a PJ:</p>

<p>NIKKOR 80-200 F/2.8D</p>

<p>Tack sharp. Built like a tank. Marvelous portrait lens too. Short of the $2500.00 70-200 VRII perhaps maybe the best zoom lens Nikon makes. (Some say optically the best.) I have the VR and I keep this one and still use it periodically. $1099.00</p>

<p>Because you have money left over:</p>

<p>Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Very fast and pretty sharp wide open (for the rare times you will use it wide open). Silent. Nice Bokeh. You can carry it in your pocket and it (along with the 80-200) will make the transition to full frame in a year. $449.00</p>

<p>You can get by with the SB-600. It is almost as powerful as the SB-800, recycles quicker and the batteries last longer. </p>

<p>So there is a pretty good PJ kit. With the camera it comes to $3532.90 from B & H after the rebate.</p>

<p>You have been getting by with far less for sometime now. You will be stunned at the possibilities the 80-200 will open for you. You may well use it more than the 17-50. You will probably not use the 50mm f/1.4 though the fixed-focus fanboys on this site will insist it is the only good lens in this kit. (They will not, for the most part, be working PJs.) You could save money buying used but you will not get better lenses for the same price.</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p>

[dave.n.az]

<p>Look back at your photos and see what focal lengths you use most and then decide. If you have ever needed wider than what you currently use take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.The Tamron 17-50mm is a good lens as is the 80-200mm f2.8 Nikon for something longer.</p>

<p>I would skip the 50mm F1.4. For the price of the 50mm F1.4 you could buy both the 50mm F1.8 and 35mm dx F1.8 for low light. The 50mm F1.8 does a decent job for portraits on a DX body. </p>

<p>Consider adding a second sb-600 to your kit. Having the D300 with the built in commander mode opens up a whole new world of easily moving your flashes off camera. <br>

Dave</p>

[dave.n.az]

<p>With a $3500 budget I went to B&H and this is what I came up with.<br>

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens for Nikon $599<br>

Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S $1359.95<br>

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Lens $1099.95<br>

Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens $119.95<br>

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens $192.95</p>

<p>For a total of 3371.80</p>

<p>Dave</p>