Printable View
In upgrading from my D40x, I think I've narrowed to the 7000 or the 300. Online research plus a study of the specs seems to say that the 300 is not really worth the extra money. The only advantage I can see is that the bracketing is up to 9 frames instead of 3. The difference in fps is only 1. And the body of the 300 is stronger, but the I don't do a lot of really super rugged stuff. Does anyone have any convincing reasons for choosing the 300 over the 7000?
Hi Hazel. If the 300s will accept the battery pack (mb-11?) and adds the extra fps (as the battery pack does for the 300, pumping the fps up to almost 9!), that would be a good thing. I don't think that the 7000 has an accessory battery pack that adds to the fps. That's all I've got.
D7000.16mpix. 6fps 14bit RAW...D300s.12mpix. 2.5fps 14bit RAW...
D300s = 2.5fps??Quote:
Originally Posted by brian simpson
I would chose the D300S anytime,
advantages of the D300S over D7000:
51 AF points vs 39
7fps vs 6fps
You will get different opinions depending on what is most important to each individual photographer. D7000 offers significantly better image quality, especially in low light, it gives higher resolution files that can print bigger or be cropped to a greater extent without losing too much resolution. It is extremely responsive and has good autofocus. It loses out to the D300s in buffer size, AF and weather sealing/rugged build, and frames per second, although the D7000 is still a well built camera it is just not as tough as the D300s.
cheers
Grant
Grant summed it up well. Having used both (rented the D300s on a few safaris and own the D7000) I can say the D7000 file quality is quite a step up from the D300s, thanks to the new sensor (no tests done, just a "real feel" comparison between files, especially at ISO settings higher than 800). The buffer size is a bummer, but hey, if you can't get the shot in 10 frames then you need to practice timing :w3.
I expect the D300s to be refreshed sometime during this year...so might be worth waiting a little while...:e3
D300s is an obsolete camera now, Nikon will replace it this year (and perhaps very soon) would wait a bit before buying.
Yes Angad...The D300 goes down to 2.5 fps while shooting Raw 14 bit...The D7000 stays at 6 fps for 14bit Raw photos...
the D300 is a great camera to shoot birds as the AF system is good, the ability to add a grip to get 8 fps is a huge bonus and the body is very well built. I've reached about 120K with my D300. Much of it shooting birds. however it i don't like the IQ at 800 and higher.
i recently bought the D7000 as i wanted to shoot some video. the difference in IQ between the 7000 and 300 is pretty tremendous. not only does the ISO on the 7000 start at a real 100 but it is also a stop cleaner at ISO, and the dynamic range is amazing.
at this point i don't think the AF system looses much to the D300's AF system. the D7000 acquires focus quickly and tracks very well. IMHO i would wager its AF system offers at least 90% the performance of the D300. after spending several days shooting BIF's i have no issues with the performance it offers.
the real issue for most is the buffer size and fps. if you use a class 10 card and limit your images to 12 bit compressed you'll net 13 images before the buffer fills. from there on out the camera can write about 2 fps to the buffer. the D300 will net you about 17-18 frames at the same quality settings.
personally for the difference in IQ and price i can live with the buffer and fps! plus you can shoot some seriously good video if you so desire!
When shooting continuous action the D7000 can be trying with its relatively small buffer. But if you can train yourself to be picky on when you pull the trigger the image quality of the D7000 puts it way ahead.
