D300 or D7100

[john_demarco]

So, it's time to upgrade from my D200 which I will be keeping as a secondary camera. I am shooting mostly my kids sports, which are

soccer, baseball, and basketball. I have read about the comparisons between the D300 and D7100, and am just curious to hear some

other opinions. I bought an AF-S 80-200, and TC-14 over the summer, and they have been working very well for me. I won't be using

the T/C for basketball though. Now, back to camera choice. I really like the feel of my D200 and battery grip, and the D300 is about the

same, so that's a plus. I haven't held the D7100 and grip yet, which I really have to do. D300S bodies are more expensive than the

D7100 which seems funny due to the fact that it's a couple of generations older.

I am really leaning more to the D7100 due to the better focusing system, and high iso quality. I don't mind buying used for the D300 at

all, I can get a body and grip for under $1000. The used to new price on the D7100 is negligible, so a new body and grip will run me

about $1500. I definitely will be staying with DX, thus the choice between these two bodies. I am looking forward to reading some of

your opinions, thanks in advance.

[Two23]

<p>I've owned both D300 and D7100. For indoor/night sports, the D7100 is a clear winner. Otherwise, here's a couple of options. (1) Buy D300, sell 80-200mm, buy used 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1. You pick up very fast AF with this option. (2) Buy D7100, keep 80-200mm. You gain about 1.5 stops with this option (ISO 2000 vs. ISO ~800.) I will add that the crop mode of the D7100 just might work well for you here, too.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>John:<br>

I had a d300 for three years and I loved it. I loved the feel of it and the images that it produced. With great hesitation I sold it to a friend of mine and bought a d7100 with a grip. There is no way to compare these two cameras. The d7100 is superior in every way except the feel of the camera in my hands. I am getting used to the feel of the 7100 and now I have no regrets at all. This is one hell of a camera in every way. The image quality and low light performance are superior by far to the d300. There is the issue of the buffer depth in this camera but I have had no problems primarily because I don't have the need for high fps. performance. I do gallery and museum work and I am in love with this camera. I have not put it to the test in bad weather. IMHO you should love it. <br>

-O</p>

<p>-</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To John the OP, my story is very simple:</p>

<ul>

<li>In November, 2007, I bought a D300 as soon as it was available. That was my main DX body for wildlife photography until late 2010,</li>

<li>when the D7000 was available in October 2010, I switched to that as my main DX body.</li>

<li>When Nikon started shipping the D7100 in March this year, they loaned me one for a couple of months. After a few weeks, I bought my own D7100 and had both bodies for a couple of weeks, before I had to ship the loaner back. Today, the D7100 is my primary DX body while the D300 and D7000 sit at home.</li>

</ul>

<p>But that is just me. You need to hold both the D300 and D7100 in your hands. For example, if you seriously dislike small DSLRs, maybe the D7100 is out for that reason. That is not something other people can decide for you.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the D7100's electronics are about 5.5 years newer than those on the D300/D300S. For high-tech electronics, 5 years is an eternity.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p> I really like the feel of my D200 and battery grip, and the D300 is about the same </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that is the case, I think you will enjoy the D300 or D300s better. The D7100 is quite different. The controls are particularly different from any other Nikon camera that I have had experience with. I am still trying to get used to it. </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>When I decided to upgrade from a D70s, I had to decide between the D300s or D7000. When I saw that the D7000 had a preset dial on top like my D70s, which I disliked immensely, that settled it for me, along with the layout of the D300s, build quality, frame rate and fast AF.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i have a d300s which i continue to use, but i would probably opt for the d7100 in this case. i held out on the d7000 due to the AF module. that has been addressed with the d7100.</p>

[pge]

<p>John I think you are overestimating the price of a used D300. I just purchased one as an upgrade to my backup camera and I found it locally in almost new condition for $400. While I was looking for one on CL I noticed that all those listed in the $600 range weren't selling despite frequent relists. If you are patient you will find a great deal. The D300 is a really nice upgrade from a D200.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>If you shoot action a lot and shoot in RAW, the buffer in the D 7100 holds only 11or 10 images if you shoot in 12 or 14 bit lossless compressed NEF images. If you shoot in compressed, it increases to 15 or 12. These are not great capacities. Download the free manual for the D 7100 and read the info on buffer capabilities near the end of the manual, page 320. If you shoot only in JPEG, fine large, it increases to 31. And these numbers assume there are no other settings set that could slow down the buffer. You can find Utube videos showing you this if you do an Internet search. I agree with Phil's comments about pricing for a used D 300. If you go the D 300 route, get the D 300s. The buffer for a D300s can hold 18-45 NEF images depending on your bit and compressed NEF settings. A large capacity buffer and fast cards is a necessity if you do a lot of continuous shooting. Joe Smith</p>

[goldbergbarry]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you shoot action a lot and shoot in RAW, the buffer in the D 7100 holds only 11or 10 images if you shoot in 12 or 14 bit lossless compressed NEF images. If you shoot in compressed, it increases to 15 or 12. These are not great capacities. </p>

</blockquote>

 

 

For shooting kids sports such as your kids and their friends, this buffer is more than enough! Even for pros, this buffer is fine for 99% of the pros out there.

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[daniel_bliss]

<p>I have a thing about battery standardization and for that reason alone I'd give it up on the D300's system. However another important point to consider is that between the boost in resolution and the general improvement in Nikon JPEGs, I think it's much more realistic to use the D7100 in JPEG mode than the D300 and that gets around the buffer issue.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am afraid that blanket statements are not particularly helpful. The D7100's buffer is limited, but it is compatible with the latest UHS-1 (Ultra High Speed) SD cards so that it can empty Nikon RAW files into memory cards much faster than any D300 or even D3 can. Back in 2007/2008, I tested the D300 and D3, and they could do no more than writing 1 frame/sec due to the technology limitation a few years ago.</p>

<p>If you choose the D7100 to shoot sports, I would use lossy compressed RAW to reduce file sizes and use the Sandisk Extreme Pro, 95MB/sec type memory cards, e.g. the two on the left side of this image: http://www.photo.net/photo/17305181</p>

<p>As I pointed out on another thread yesterday, when I prepared photo.net's D7100 review earlier this year, I had this folder with a lot of action images captured with the D7100: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1052968<br>

You can find larger versions of both the sample images below in that D7100 folder.</p>

<p>The D7100 can capture 6 fps with the entire DX frame, and its RAW buffer is 7 frames. In the one second you capture 6 frames, it can also empty about 3 frames into the Extreme Pro. Therefore, you have about 10 frames to play around with.</p>

<p>For example, when I captured this image with the girl doing a 50-meter dash, I ran out of buffer after a couple of seconds but the entire dash was about 10 seconds. Therefore, in the last 8 seconds, I was doing 3 fps because that was how fast the D7100 could empty its buffer. Needless to say, that was very annoying.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17262415-sm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>However, for a lot of birds in flight, I may capture 5 frames or 10 frames, and the bird moves to a different position. When there is a 2, 3-second break, the entire D7100 buffer would be available again. I certainly have run into buffer full situations, but that is manageable.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17257553-sm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>When your subject is kid's basketball or baseball, the action typically last only a second or two. Most likely the D7100 will be just fine. It is when the action is continuous for 5 seconds, 10 seconds, the D7100 will get into trouble. Of course, if you are willing to shoot JPEG, the buffer is a non issue.</p>

<p>However, the D7100 is a considerably smaller DSLR than the D300/D300S. If you prefer the D200's size, you may not like the D7100. Personally, I don't mind large or small cameras; either way works for me as long as I can good images. I never use the D7100 with a grip, which I don't own.</p>

[john_demarco]

Thank you all very much for the replies! I do like the feel of a larger camera, but probably not enough to give up the

newer features of the D7100. I will definitely have to handle one before a purchase is made. Price wise, I was comparing

a new D300s to a new D7100, and used prices are a lot less. I have read all about the buffer issue, i shoot RAW and

don't use the spray and pray style of shooting so I can work around that. Why can't they make a D400 already, and make

this choice easier :) Just kidding! Your replies are what makes this site great, and help a great deal! Just like when I

posted earlier in the year wether or not I should get rid of my 70-300VR, and by the way I did keep it to accompany the

AF-S 80-200 that I wound up buying. Thanks again, and I'll let you know what choice is made, but the D7100 has the

edge.

[rossb]

<p>The D200 is fine for outdoor sports. A good camera and the D300 would be fine also. The problem is the D300 is not that much different to warrant replacing a good working camera. The d7100 is a more capable camera but they built it around a squished up body with a poorly designed grip. Go to CostCo someplace and pick up a D7100 and if your ok with the ergonomics then buy that or keep shooting the D200. </p>

[john_demarco]

I will definitely be keeping the D200, and keep shooting with it to supplement the new body. I am also going to keep my

D40X as a "just in case" body. I am actually going to use both of them this afternoon to shoot soccer, D200 with My AF-S

80-200 T/C 14 combo, and the D40X with my 70-300 VR. I know some folks have issues with the 70-300, but I have

found it to be a pretty good lens for shooting in the daytime. I am leaning more towards the D7100 for the better

autofocus system and high ISO capability when I shoot indoor sports such as baketball. These days, at least for myself

it is easier just to keep my perfectly functioning older equipment rather than trying to sell it to someone who basically

wants it free.

[david_kaye]

John, your D200 is an excellent candidate to convert to color infrared.

 

www.livepixel.com

 

I have the D300 and D7000, and I think chasing more megapixels is insane.

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>i held out on the d7000 due to the AF module. that has been addressed with the d7100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you elaborate on this? References would be nice.</p>

<p>I shied away from the D7000 due to the reported AF problems, and have not paid much attention to the D7100.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>The D300s is far, far better than the D200. I have both and the few times I've had to shoot an action event with the D200, I've felt unable to get the best shot I could compared to the D300s.<br /> The thing about the D7000/D7100 is it has neither a 10-pin remote port or a flash sync port. Other than IQ, there's no way it's a direct replacement for the D300s. As Shun's shots show, it is a very capable camera. My D300s/80-400 has trouble getting a perfect shot of a runner coming at me. That's probably more my skill than anything.<br /> Not having those ports, for me, majorly dissuades me from purchasing a D7100. It just kills me not to have a high-end SLR in the $1700 price point. The D600 certainly isn't a D300s in full frame. I'm just hoping my camera body doesn't die - I'll be in a world of hurt to figure out what to do.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>Looking at some of the training DVDs shows the D7100 is a consumer cam for sure. Nikon spent the money to put an "i" info button in addition to the "info" on the back but makes you go through menus to select AF-C, AF-S and AF-A?<br>

But there's no replacement for the D300s. :(</p>

[john_roos]

I am a user of the D7100 having upgraded from the D5100 model. The camera has a lot of features including all different short cut

menus. I saw someone making a remark about the aps settings that have to be done through the menu. This perso should read the

manual first before writing down this nonsence. Here is a tip, press the AF/M button on the side and use the back scroll wheel and that

should do it.

[aaron l]

<p>Glad the 7100 can scroll through focus settings, that's better than menus for sure! But I have to take my eye off the shooting to switch between AF-S and AF-C unless there's an indicator in the viewfinder, then?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Aaron, it sounds like you have not bought, or used, any new Nikon DSLR after the D300/D300S. From the 2010 D7000 and on, the C/S/M switch is gone, possibly due to the complaint that some people tend to switch it unintentionally. Replacing it is an AF/M switch/button, and you hold down that button and then rotate the main and sub command dials to select AF-C vs. AF-S, 9, 21, or 39/51 AF points, etc. The D4, D800, D600, D610, and D7100 all work that way.</p>