A successor for my D300. Input appreciated...

[marklcooper]

<p>My D300 crapped out around 2012. Leaving it out in the rain one weekend did not help<g>, but it lasted another couple years. I replaced it with another D300. I have the battery grip for the D300. The grip really balances out the 17 -55 f/2.8 and the 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR1. I've handled the D7200...just does not get it. I really do not have a need for FX. Realistically, my D300 should satisfy my needs for another 5 years. I'm an amateur. I do event photography on occasion for my county government. Gratis. I've printed 24" x 36" with good results. For Internet use, the D300 is more than adequate.</p>

<p>If Nikon released a D400 next year I'd be hard pressed to justify a purchase.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>If one uses the cropped frame D300 (with MB-D10 Multi-Power Battery Grip) specifically for 8 FPS sports or BIF shooting like I did, there is no Nikon replacement unless you move to FF. In sports shooting, capturing peak action is the main objective and the higher the FPS, the better your chances. If you don't need peak action, or are really good at capturing peak action with a single shot, then Nikon offers many excellent alternatives as mentioned above. </p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Micheal, the D7200 gets 6 fps, which is the same as the D300 without a battery grip. I still think the D300 is over-rated on fps, as my D600 is actually faster and takes more photos (buffer) than my D300. I thought there was something wrong with my D300 but my brothers is the same way. Regardless, 6 fps is more than enough for anyone. The D7200 is a much better camera than the D300. I would say that the D300 may be better built but I really do not think it is. After a years use the rubber grips will start to fall off of a D300. The grips on the D7200 are much improved!</p>

[jorish]

<p>Just an update for anyone who is interested in the outcome...</p>

<p>I went and tried both the D7200 and the D750 in a shop. Funnily enough, they were both a bit larger than I'd anticipated, and not (at first sight) noticably smaller than my D300. Once in my hand however, the difference was there, and the D300 still felt best. The D750 was a close second, and the D7200 caused my hand to pinch more than I like (there was some space between my hand and the body when I put my hand around the grip, so my fingers had to exert more power to hold the camera).<br>

So, I chose the D750...<br>

Right after that, we went to Paris, where my girlfriend used the trusty D300 and I used the D750. And it turns out I'm happy with my choice \o/</p>

<p>I still takes getting used to the controls, and changing the mode between A, S, P & M is an absolute nightmare for me. Shame on Nikon for such laborious controls that make you take away your eye from the viewfinder and potentially miss a shot (I could do it blindly with the 'push a button and turn a wheel'-way on the D300).<br>

Changing the ISO was a problem until I put it under the videobutton (I never use video anyway).</p>

<p>Getting used to the 'new focal lengths' of my lenses will take time, but also opens up new perspectives (pun intended), so that's mostly fun.</p>

<p>On the plus side, I'm very happy so far with the new metering mode that's based on the highlights in the scene and with the amazing quality of formerly too-high ISO values.</p>

<p>I'm still below the 500 shutter count, so it's still early days, but I think I'm going to be very happy with the D750. In the end the way the camera feels in my hand was the most important consideration, but that was also due to the fact that other questions were already answered by you guys. Oh, the joys of active and helpful forums! So, thanks again, mille fois merci and hartelijk dank from the Netherlands :)</p>