Anyone here who would still prefer a D300s over D7000?

[richardday]

I'd buy a D300s. The D7000 is a D90 replacement, no way is it a D300s replacement.

To me the D300s menus and controls toast the D90 and from waht I can determine, the D7000. The extra 4MP's is about a 10% linear increase in each direction, so it's no big deal, the video mode is not a major concern.

The D700 has the DR and noise performance (both low and high ISO) in Raw to aim for, I cannot see any evidence so far that the D7000 imaging system is even close, at best it may be a tiny bit better than the D300s, probably within tolerance limits which is nowhere near enough. Most of the rhetoric saying otherwise appears to be mainly marketing hyperbole and I don't buy it!

Why not a D700? I prefer DX to FX for my needs (smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses for UW and general purpose, and crop factor for the longer lenses as I like to photograph small birds and butterflies).

I'm a late adopter by habit (been burned too much in the past) and bought my D300s in May this year after careful consideration as it met 95% of my needs and calculating on at least a 3+ year usage. My requirements haven't changed, nor has anything else appeared as yet that fills the missing 5%.
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK

 

[marin]

If I lost my D300 today, I'd probably buy a D7000 + vertical grip now and would sell it for a D400 later on.

More to try it out though. I could also see myself getting a cheap D300 (non-s) on ebay and just keep it, I don't really need more than this camera can do.

 

[dumbo]

Most likely would get the D300s because of the better handling and larger body. The D7000 lacks buttons and levers on the body which would make it slower and more awkward to handle/setup. The larger body would probably fit my hands better (have not held a D7000 yet so I'm not 100% certain of that though.
I might think for a moment about getting the D700 though.

Lets say you lost all your photo equipment and you were making a fresh start from scratch. You were to make your purchase of new equipment till the end of November. Would you today purchase a D300s? a D7000 or accept that full frame is the future and go with D700?

I appreciate your replies especially if you state the reason behind your choice.

Thanks

 

[Firestorm2000]

Firstly, I don't accept that Full Frame is the future. I chose DX for being a good allrounder and needed the extra reach. So the D700 was rejected on that basis. I think the D7000 is quite nice but not even close to overiding the D300/D300s.

For me; the D7000 is too small. I came from the D70 originally and chose to upgrade to a D300 because I didn't like the feel of the smaller D80/D90. It has the pro features I prefer and would therefore wait for the next pro level D400.
--
My galleries at http://www.firestorm.smugmug.com
and
http://picasaweb.google.com/Barry.Humphries

 

[DRode]

Fx is not the future of Nikon bodies. The future hold Fx and Dx. I would love to have a D700 but it's impractical for me. I would need to spend an extra $1k on the body and another $5k or more on lenses to get back the reach I need for sports.

Is a D700 + 300mm f/2.8 superior to a D300s + 80-200 f/2.8? It depends. I would certainly get a clearer image at ISO 3200-6400 which is where I often need to be to get a fast enough shutter. However, I lose the ability to zoom wider that 300mm (200mm Dx equiv) and I have to spend at least $7500 on the package.

My D300s + 80-200mm f/2.8 totaled out around $2500. With a upgrade to the excellent 70-200 VRII, that number is still only about $3500, less than half of the non-zooming D700 + 300mm. The D700 has some other advantages that I would love to have but I need to 200mm Dx / 300mm Fx reach and just want the other stuff.

Spending $4-5k extra gain a stop of ISO and lose wide end zoom, doesn't make any sense for me. If I were a pro making my living off sports images, I would go with a D3s and a D700 as a secondary body. The kit to shoot sports professionally costs $30k-$40 but it's a way to spend the workday

The D7000 is a great camera and Ic an use my current lenses. I wasn't shooting sports, I would buy it over the D300s in a heartbeat. However, the AF and FPS are still a behind the D300s and that's a deal breaker for me. When the D400 comes out, I expect 8+ FPS, an AF system better than D300s and at least one more stop of clean ISO.

Lets say you lost all your photo equipment and you were making a fresh start from scratch. You were to make your purchase of new equipment till the end of November. Would you today purchase a D300s? a D7000 or accept that full frame is the future and go with D700?

I appreciate your replies especially if you state the reason behind your choice.

Thanks

--
-Dan Rode
http://rodephoto.com

 

[KnightPhoto2]

I wouldn't go D300S or D700 because they are both late in their product cycle (and that is not my style at all ;-) ).

Therefore I would go D7000, it is reasonably cheap and if I want to resell it next year it won't actually cost me much to use it in the interim. Then I can get the D700X/D700S/D800 and/or D400 as appropriate.

Personally I recommend a mixed DX/FX kit for most shooters, there are advantages to both!

--
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002

 

[Peter Whitby]

I'll keep my D300s. Easier to change AF.

 

[olyflyer]

I wouldn't go D300S or D700 because they are both late in their product cycle (and that is not my style at all ;-) ).

Therefore I would go D7000, it is reasonably cheap and if I want to resell it next year it won't actually cost me much to use it in the interim. Then I can get the D700X/D700S/D800 and/or D400 as appropriate.

Personally I recommend a mixed DX/FX kit for most shooters, there are advantages to both!

But...

If you buy a D7000 now and sell in one year time it will be just as outdated and old as the D300s is today...

So, every time a new camera comes out you buy it? Personally I prefer using my cameras as well, not just having the latest and greatest technological piece of gear.

Of course, DX/FX combo is good, but not everyone needs two bodies. Besides, apart from the body weight and price differences, I see no advantage in DX systems, assuming you don't need to crop the FX heavily I think FX is the way to go.
--
Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.
(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

[sandy b]

I have a D3. Its heavy. With my 24-70, its 4 pounds. I want a second camera thats lighter and less obtrusive. The D300 is nice, but still heavy. The D7000 is lighter, smaller. It also looks to have better IQ than the D300, and 95% of the features.