Hi all,
I consider getting a Nikon body. I am a Canon shooter but I own the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR and would like to get a body to use with it.
Which body should I get - the D7000 or the D300s ?
Thanks,
Ofer
Hi all,
I consider getting a Nikon body. I am a Canon shooter but I own the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR and would like to get a body to use with it.
Which body should I get - the D7000 or the D300s ?
Thanks,
Ofer
Ofer,
This link was posted yesterday by Aravind Khrisnaswamy, hope it is useful
http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm
Back to the original question of Ofer. At this point, I'd suggest D7000.
Ofer, I recently got the D7000 as an upgrade from the D90 and I'm very happy with it. The AF has been excellent for BIF and I'm not afraid to shoot it up to ISO 1600. I think the biggest downside compared to the D300S is that the shot buffer is smaller since it's a consumer level camera. I suspect that the upcoming D400 (or whatever it gets called) will be a wonderful camera, but who knows when it will actually be available.
I suppose you have the v1 of the 200-400. Don't worry, it's a great lens, just don't shoot too far away subjects.
It's really a pity not using it.
Regarding the body, contrary to others I suggest the D300s. It has better AF modes, more buffer, and several functions that are important like build like a tank and much more resistant to weather. These later are important to wildlife. IQ is ok until ISO 800.
More pixels doesn't mean better photos, and it puts more stress on the lenses.
The D7000 has been reviewed as having issues with filling up the buffer after ten or so raw frames are continuously shot and then the frame rate goes way down. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ni.../verdict.shtml
Thanks for your input guys!
The buffer is a big problem for me as I shoot action and behaviour and need to be able to shoot long sequences.
As to the Nikon 200-400 VR review. I am not sure about this observation that the lens being less sharp at long distances....
It has nothing to do with the lens. I often get horrible results when I use my Canon 600 f4 IS at long distance as there are atmospheric factors involved.
From my experience and from what I have heard from people I highly respect like E.J Peiker the 200-400 is a superb lens.![]()
True as it may re D7000, I just think D300s is out-dated technology and so it doesn't make sense to me that one should not be getting a D7000 that seems to give you better image quality, not to mention a little bit more pixels![]()
According to Thom Hogan, D300s is no longer in production.
Ofer, I too am awaiting the new bodies from nikon to make my D300 a backup. "I just think D300s is out-dated technology", so is the D7000 after all it has been released... just like our computers they are outdated as soon as we can put our hands on them. There are still alot of old school IDMk2n's out there making great imges on the canon side as well. I still love my D300 but where I live a bit higher iso capability would be nice. Don't think you will go wrong with D300s, as I see it waiting will not produce any images with the lens you want to use. Good luck with your choice.
Todd
Oh c'mon, don't get me wrong.I'm not saying you can't make good images with D300s. I myself still use the "obsolete" D300
I'm just saying given the new one vs the old one, especially when the new one seems to be better than or just as good as the older one in most aspects, it just makes sense to pick the new one
![]()
Desmond, I know what you are saying and I agree to a point. Build quality and buffer would be my only concerns. I just forgot to insert the smileys when I posted
Todd
What about a good second hand D3 or D700? I personally think it would work better as you have a 600 mm already. A full frame camera with 200-400 would fill the gap nicely and will not duplicate the same focal lengthI have used both the D300 and D3. I sold the D300 as I much prefered the big sensors IQ.
Hi Ofer, I just had the chance to take a few hundred frames with the D7000. The camera has a Sigma 120-400 OS lens on it, which is a f5.6 lens. What I can say is that I found the D7000 autofocus to be surprizingly fast and accurate, even with this relatively slow lens. I would really like to try one out with a piece of faster Nikon glass on it like a 300f2.8 or a 500f4. Image quality is excellent, and noise low for an APS camera. Seems to be a great camera for the money...
cheers
Grant
If you are birding, I would go with the D300 or D300s at present with the 200-400. The newer cameras are very small, and I think with the relatively large and heavy 200-400 you will find that the heavier and more solid D300 body is preferable. Also, the DX sensor is like a built in TX vs. the FX sensor. The D300 also has a terrific arrangement of controls, you can adjust almost everything easily without ever taking your eye off the viewfinder, mostly due to the larger layout.
I have the 200-400 (older) and D300. I have found no lack of sharpness, it is an amazing lens. It is heavy but it is usable handheld. Replace the foot with one you can use as a handle. The D300s gives you a newer sensor and still a very fine camera. If we knew the D400 was coming next week -- well, yes, get that. But who knows. But that is really a favorite lens.
I want a D700 (FX) for low light, but not for birding -- there the DX sensor is great (ok, maybe the D3X woudl be as good).
The D300 can only be found on the second hand market. But you can get a really great camera at a bargain price, because of the upgrade wave. The D300s adds too little to the D300, being video the mainly difference. D7000 has more pixels, and better ISO, but lacks others options and functionality's very useful in birding (buffer, robustness, seals), and also is maybe too small to be put on the 200-400.
With the D7000 you can (?) crop more but for me that's never a good option regarding being closer.
As said the best option would be either a D300 or a D300s. If you can get closer or if you are shooting bigger birds even a D3 or a D3s would be in order.