nikon d7000 or nikon d5300

[nick_nick3]

<p>hi, which one is better for average photographer? nikon d7100 or d5300, or even maybe lumix lx100. </p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>What lenses are you likely to be using? If just a zoom lens or two, the 5300 is a solid choice, however the viewfinder is really only for composing the photo as it is not as clear and bright as the (bigger) D7000. If you think you might be getting some manual focus lenses or used AF-D lenses, then the D7000 will work better with these. It really is a case of holding and trying both as they are very different to hold. The D7000 will be a fair bit heavier as well as having a better viewfinder.</p>

<p>My choice would be the D7000 as it has an excellent sensor with (in my opinion) just right megapixels. I have used mine at night and had some excellent results. It is a nice camera!</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>You also might think about the d7100. I have one and love it.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Thomas J.]

<p>You can't go wrong with a D7000.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You can't go wrong with a D5300 either. The D5200 is also a fine choice for many. It depends much on what you're used to now, and which particular features are important to you.<br>

A lot of people I see getting their first (D)SLR now use the backscreen (liveview) a lot, as they're used to it from compacts and cellphones. In which case, the rotating screen on the D5x00 is a really nice addition. If you want a good optical viewfinder, the D7x00 is way ahead.<br>

How familiar are you with cameras? For many the lack of the front wheel on the D3x00 and D5x00 models is of no consequence. For most people on this forum, it would be enough to drive them up the wall.<br>

Weight, size, handling - all personal choices what does and does not matter to you. </p>

<p>So, the one that is better is the one that suits your needs and preferences best. Could be both, could be the Lumix, could be a Canon EOS1200D, could be a Fuji X-E.... and so on. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>How are you using your photos and what do you shoot? These are the most important considerations.<br /><br />Printing big?<br /><br />Online only?<br /><br />Landscapes? or Sports? or Events?<br /><br />Can't answer your question without knowing those things.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>LX100</p>

<ul>

<li>Pros: small, fast aperture, decent zoom range</li>

<li>Cons: smaller sensor, fixed lens</li>

</ul>

<p>D7000</p>

<ul>

<li>Pros: nice prism viewfinder (compared with D5300), can use old manual focus lenses, good AF, pretty good controls</li>

<li>Cons: older sensor (compared with D5300)</li>

</ul>

<p>D5300</p>

<ul>

<li>Pros: best sensor, nice articulated LCD</li>

<li>Cons: less advanced features</li>

</ul>

<p>I agree with the other commenters - more information about your goals would be helpful.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>What do you photo? If you mostly do travel photography, the D5300 is nice and small. If you rarely do that......... would really really help knowing what you want to do with the camera and what lenses you have.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>there's no one type of 'average photographer.' any of those cameras would suffice for average photo-taking. if you want to take above-average photos, now, that's a different story. ;) </p>

<p>but as far as comparison goes, one point about the d7000 is it has two control dials and a focus motor. so it's more 'pro' as far as control layout and can also use a wider array of lenses with full AF. the d5300, OTOH, would be better for video, since it has the pop-out LCD. and if you plan on printing large or cropping extensively, 24mp is better than 16. the LX100 will be a little worse at high-ISO than an APS-C DSLR, but it's the most compact of the bunch and includes a fast zoom lens. of course, that's a fixed lens, but a comparable lens for a Nikon body would add several hundred to more than one thousand dollars to the price. so if you never need to shoot wider than 24mm or longer than 75mm, you get a nice all in one package that also has 4k video. one nice thing about the LX100 which mitigates the low-light performance somewhat is the f/1.7 max aperture at 24mm, which is two stops faster than a nikon kit lens.</p>

<p>without knowing anything else about the OP's intended uses, i might actually suggest the LX100, simply because the more compact a camera is, the more likely it is not to be left behind, and the larger sensor of the Nikons may not matter, depending on use. so you may realize more photo opportunities with the Panasonic. OTOH, if there's any plans to build a system and use different lenses, the LX100 is obviously not ideal for that. And, there are two "gotchas" with the LX100: no optical stabilizer (which helps with video and shooting still subjects in low light), and no built-in flash. it does come with a clip-on external flash, though.</p>

[bob_h]

<p>Why not get one of each? You might like them both for different photo occasions. Just saw D7000 refurbs with 2 lenses for $449. last week.</p>

[branko_sreckovic]

<p>Greetings all, this is my first post on photo.net and this thread just got my attention mainly because of my own dilemma. I am going step further in intention to change my D7000.<br>

From my knowledge and experience i won't recommend D7000 anymore.<br>

Reason? Nikon really neglected quality control to this model with fickle autofocus system. I was one of the 'lucky' person to get D7k with autofocus issue. It had to be one of corner stones in photography innovations yet plagued with poor quality control or maybe design itself.<br>

My D7k went into repair shop but they were not able to return me troublefree body anymore. Since I live in Serbia pls.don't ask of return policy.<br>

So...If you can test particular specimen of D7k and you are able to get it work without flaws with ALL of your lenses go and get it (of course if your field of interest is photography in good light condition, otherwise get yourself DxO to deal with noise in low light conditions).<br>

Just my '2 cents'<br>

Cheers</p>