Opinion on D7000 or D300s???

[jdag]

absolutely, as far as i have read and researched, there are sick glass for the canons.... another main reason why i would like to stick with a nikon is the fact that i have friends that own nikon dslrs... soooo i can borrow their lenses as well if needed.

That's a good reason in my mind to select 1 of the 2 brands too. My son also has Nikon gear, so we do share/swap lenses often.

how do you like your d7000?? and did you ever consider the 300s?? and do you ever think back and wish you would have gone with the d300s?? thank you

As mentioned above, I had the D90 and went to the D7000, and I do consider it a pretty large step forward. I did consider the D300s, but in reading reviews and chats, it seemed clear (to me) that the D7000 had nearly everything I wanted. In fact, many people do consider the D7000 superior to the D300s in the most important areas, including image sensor and ISO performance (not trying to start a fight here!). My assumption is that the camera that will replace the D300s will leapfrog the D7000, but also be about 50% more costly.

The only few features that the D300s had that were tempting to me over the D7000:
7fps over 6fps
The larger body
The fact that the D300s is fully magnesium alloy

Otherwise the D7000 has every other feature I found important.

 

[lafaphotography]

thanks for the help!!!

 

[Kerbouchard]

If your budget is 2k for the camera body, I couldn't imagine picking up the D300s or D7000 at this point. The D300s is a little long in the tooth and the D7000 is a consumer camera. If you actually have aspirations of going pro, either wait for the price gouging to stop on the d700, which was around 2300 before the Japanese Earthquake or wait for the replacement to the d700 to come out and pick one up when the price drops.

There is no reason to spend that much money on a consumer camera. Honestly, this is a horrible time to buy a camera. Prices are ridiculous and inventory is hard to find. There is a good reason why you were able to sell your 50d for more than you paid for it. That earthquake has gotten photographers and resellers in a goofy sort of way.

If you still have the D5000 and can wait until sanity is restored, I would wait until you could afford the D700.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I had a D5000 and sold it to buy this D7000 (because the D700 upgrade is not coming soon). Now I'm enjoying the better ISO/night/indoor performance, focus of older lenses, commander mode, buttons instead of mad menu digging for simple changes before a shot, LED display on top, and a host of other things over the D5000.

I'll prolly keep the D7000 as a backup after the new stuff comes to us one day.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I am not saying the D7000 isn't a huge step up from a D5000...Heck, a D90 is a huge step up from a D5000. The OP just seems to be bouncing between cameras like nothing, and I would encourage him to master what he has and then, when he is ready, and has the budget, to actually step up to something that will make a huge difference from his previous 50d.

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

Let's see, a D7000 in one hand and a D300s in the other......hmmmmm..... << raising one hand up and admiring delightfully and then similarly with the other hand >> I'd say you couldn't wrong either way.

It's a Nikon FFS.

Seriously, though, I mean really, c'mon.

Lastly, don't forget about the glass. If you want the machine to perform, you gotta add the high octane.

 

[IgsEMT]

I've been using D300s for over a year now and its truly amazing gear. I had a chance to work with D7000 few weeks ago and compare the two (both on screen and in-print). When comparing the two on the screen in D7000 looks better in ISOs over 1600 (thats when all settings are kept the same, including off-camera lights). However in print, and its an unfortunate fact that was confirmed by two labs and few other photogs who used both bodies at question - when printing anything 16x20 or bigger, d7000's seemed empty. There were some sort of boxes/lines (not grain/noise/pixels) present it print. I contacted both labs (I tried one Miller's and then the other H&H) and was told that they often get these complaints from d7000 users. Then I contacted another lab and sent in the 2 files- only to get the same results.
I later contacted few colleagues who work in other states about their opinions and got similar feedback.

Basically, if kept in ISO 400 and under, large prints are fine but going over - artifacts come about.
I was looking at D7000 to upgrade my d300s but after above tests and lack of pc-plug, it isn't the camera for me.

good luck

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I've been using D300s for over a year now and its truly amazing gear. I had a chance to work with D7000 few weeks ago and compare the two (both on screen and in-print). When comparing the two on the screen in D7000 looks better in ISOs over 1600 (thats when all settings are kept the same, including off-camera lights). However in print, and its an unfortunate fact that was confirmed by two labs and few other photogs who used both bodies at question - when printing anything 16x20 or bigger, d7000's seemed empty. There were some sort of boxes/lines (not grain/noise/pixels) present it print. I contacted both labs (I tried one Miller's and then the other H&H) and was told that they often get these complaints from d7000 users. Then I contacted another lab and sent in the 2 files- only to get the same results.
I later contacted few colleagues who work in other states about their opinions and got similar feedback.

Basically, if kept in ISO 400 and under, large prints are fine but going over - artifacts come about.
I was looking at D7000 to upgrade my d300s but after above tests and lack of pc-plug, it isn't the camera for me.

good luck

The lab that did my prints for my ancient 620 film Jiffy Kodak talked to me about the D7000 and said nothing but good things before I recently bought mine. Maybe he was BSing me, I haven't had anything printed that big yet.

I'm having a prob printing regular stuff (same prob I had with my D5000) and suspect its a soft proofing issue from Lightroom causing my pics to be dark. Maybe I'll have them print me a huge one just to see it whether the brightness of the print is correct or not. Matter of fact I know I will

 

[IgsEMT]

Pretty much for every job, be that a wedding, newborn or anything else, there's at least one 16x20 being printed per client's order, so its one of the ways I look at the camera's performance. & I don't print at chepo costco or cvs or any of those places. I never printed anything in lower ISOs with D7000 so wouldn't know but I have printed 16x24, even 20x24 from a D50 and D70 - and although 20x24 was border line, 16x24 was a good print - assuming ISOs were under 400 .

 

[Derrel]

This is a bad time to buy a new Nikon. The best strategy is to get a new Nikon when it just hits the market,and to use it for its current lifetime in production, which can be up to four years on the flagship models. With the devastation the tsunami caused, Nikon's high-end gear assembly plant, located in Sendai, Japan, was affected and is currently affected by serious problems, like electricity supplies that are inadequate or rationed,as well as all types of transportation and shipping issues caused by the horrible tsunami destruction. The lower-end gear, assembled in other countries, or other plants, is not affected.

If you wear eyeglasses, you might prefer the viewfinder system in the D300s over that in the squinty eyepiece and viewfinder system the D7000 has. Right now, I would hang tight.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

This is a bad time to buy a new Nikon. The best strategy is to get a new Nikon when it just hits the market,and to use it for its current lifetime in production, which can be up to four years on the flagship models. With the devastation the tsunami caused, Nikon's high-end gear assembly plant, located in Sendai, Japan, was affected and is currently affected by serious problems, like electricity supplies that are inadequate or rationed,as well as all types of transportation and shipping issues caused by the horrible tsunami destruction. The lower-end gear, assembled in other countries, or other plants, is not affected.

If you wear eyeglasses, you might prefer the viewfinder system in the D300s over that in the squinty eyepiece and viewfinder system the D7000 has. Right now, I would hang tight.

I'm finding the size of both the D7000 viewfinder and D300 is .62x, is that not the case?

Also most sources agree: "While Nikon D300s has a better AF system and faster frames per second, Nikon D7000 has the lead in the most important features such as sensor, ISO performance and video. The D7000 is also lighter, more compact and cheaper &#8211; at this time, it just does not make sense to buy the D300s anymore (unless you shoot action and you need the better AF system on the D300s)."

Personally I plan to upgrade my D7000 after Japan revives Nikon. Bet the D300S upgrade is going to be mad awesome one day.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the size of the viewfinder is the same on both cameras, at .63x. However, they are not the same,exact viewfinder system. For me, the eye relief of the D7000 is just not adequate to be able to see all four corners of the viewfinder when wearing my glasses. It has an eyepoint or eye relief of maximum 18mm. The D300s has an eyepoint or eye relief of 19.5mm. The Nikon D2x is 19.9mm. The Canon EOS 5D and 5D-II have a long eye relief of 21mm. The F3 High Eyepoint was 24.5mm. It might not seem like much, but the difference between 18mm and even 19.5mm is significant when your eyeglasses put your eyeball itself OVER 18mm behind the eyepiece...

It's not the viewfinder size, nor its magnification, nor its % of coverage, it is the eye relief the viewfinder system offers that determines how well an eyeglass user (or goggle-wearer) or sunglass wearer, can see all four corners of the viewfinder. To me, the D7000 isn't a good fit in terms of eye relief.

 

[billydoo73]

i am struggling with this decision for a D700 backup. Weddings and Portraits. I have a D7000, but did not use it last wedding as it felt SO AWKWARD with a 70-200 VR mounted. instead, i borrowed a D300 and was very pleased.

a lot of people praising the D7000 do so it seems from a "consumer" mindset. good HEAVY glass on a D7000 is not balanced at all.

so, there is the dilemma. Higher ISO and video versus PRO build, AF, and dedicated buttons/levers.

on paper, the D7000 is better than the D3! but, how many pros today are throwing their D3's in the trash...ZERO.

 

[cgipson1]

i am struggling with this decision for a D700 backup. Weddings and Portraits. I have a D7000, but did not use it last wedding as it felt SO AWKWARD with a 70-200 VR mounted. instead, i borrowed a D300 and was very pleased.

a lot of people praising the D7000 do so it seems from a "consumer" mindset. good HEAVY glass on a D7000 is not balanced at all.

so, there is the dilemma. Higher ISO and video versus PRO build, AF, and dedicated buttons/levers.

on paper, the D7000 is better than the D3! but, how many pros today are throwing their D3's in the trash...ZERO.

I use a 70-200 2.8 VRII on my 7000 all of the time.. and don't feel that it is any more unbalanced than any other camera I have used. Having the MB-D11 helps... but I don't always use that either.... considering the fact that the body sizes on the 7000 and the 300 are not that much different (other than 6 oz of weight), I don't know what your complaint is.