# I want to buy a D300, not a D7000, why?



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

OK, I own a D90. I've had it for three years. It's my faithful companion. Nothin' but love!
But around Christmas I'll be adding a D300 to my collection. Why not a D7000? I don't know.
Hard to explain but I don't want it. It's too much like my D90 and I want something different, even with the older technology.
The build, feel and layout of the D300 is something I've always wanted.
Call me crazy, but that's just me. 
How stupid am I?

Be nice....


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 21, 2012)

the D300 still has advantages over the D7000, like the 51 focus points instead of 39, and more FPS. you might consider the D300s used as you can get them newer.


----------



## Markw (Aug 21, 2012)

The D90 has the same sensor as the D300s.  Which is essentially the same as the one in the D300.  You'll gain absolutely nothing, sensor-wise, doing that.  But, the body is quite a bit better.  I went from a D90 to a D300s and loved the new body feel.

Mark


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2012)

Yea I would at least get the D300s


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> the D300 still has advantages over the D7000, like the 51 focus points instead of 39, and more FPS. you might consider the D300s used as you can get them newer.



Indeed!!! I want the 51 focal points!!! I do!!! It's one reason why... and the 8 frames per second... and of course... the larger size/build.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

Markw said:


> The D90 has the same sensor as the D300s.  Which is essentially the same as the one in the D300.  You'll gain absolutely nothing, sensor-wise, doing that.  But, the body is quite a bit better.  I went from a D90 to a D300s and loved the new body feel.
> 
> Mark



True... that's one reason I want it... I love my D90 and I'd like a larger, stronger, more pro-like version of the D90.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Yea I would at least get the D300s


No, I want the D300 because I already have video on my D90. Don't want to pay extra for the D300s, when my D90's has that already.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 21, 2012)

51 focus points are nice, but if you shoot like I do... you only use one at a time. The 11 focus points in my D90 have been more than accommodating over the last 4 years.

The biggest difference that I see between the D90 and the D300 is the 1/8000th shutter speed, vs the 1/4000th.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> 51 focus points are nice, but if you shoot like I do... you only use one at a time. The 11 focus points in my D90 have been more than accommodating over the last 4 years.
> 
> The biggest difference that I see between the D90 and the D300 is the 1/8000th shutter speed, vs the 1/4000th.



True.. I'm keeping my D90. It's been my faithful companion for over three years. But I don't want to swap it in favor of a D7000. I want to buy a D300 because I'm that impressed with my D90.
I want to own two bodies so the D90's older, bigger brother is what I'm wanting.
I held one and was blown away by the build. I held a D7000 and wasn't. It was very much like our D90, only a bit better thanks to the metal body.
But the D300 was in another class of camera. I must have one. And I'm real excited about the 8 frames per second for ballgames, races, etc....


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2012)

shadowlands said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Yea I would at least get the D300s
> ...



Do you also not mind paying extra for a bunch of CF cards?  The D300s will at least let you use all your old SD cards along with the other minor updates.


----------



## KmH (Aug 21, 2012)

15 of the 51 AF points the D300 has are cross-type points.

Plus the Multi-CAM 3500 DX auto focus module in the D300/D300s has functions the D90's Multi-CAM 1000 auto focus module lacks.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> shadowlands said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Nah, I have some CF's already and today, they're not costly at all. The price difference between the D300 and D300s is much greater than a couple 8GB CF cards.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

KmH said:


> 15 of the 51 AF points the D300 has are cross-type points.
> 
> Plus the Multi-CAM 3500 DX auto focus module in the D300/D300s has functions the D90's Multi-CAM 1000 auto focus module lacks.



What about the D7000's?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 21, 2012)

Considering how much a D300s is, it would be foolish not to buy a (used) D700 instead.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Considering how much a D300s is, it would be foolish not to buy a (used) D700 instead.


I'm just looking for a used D300 from adorama, B&H, cameta, roberts & keh, etc.. 6 month warranty, at least.
See them for $700.00 from time to time...
My hope is for the D400 and or D600 to come out in a month or two, thus dropping the D300 prices....


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 21, 2012)

What???  A used D300s is ~$900 with grip and a used D700 is ~$1600 w/no grip... nearly double.  Not to mention he'd have to drop another $3k on lenses since none of his current ones would be very useful on the D700


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 21, 2012)

uhhh... the D700 has an auto DX mode, so every lens that he owns would work just fine.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 21, 2012)

No, I don't want a D700. Can't swing that right now. Just want a D300. Don't need the D300s for I've got video in my D90.
D300, coming soon...


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 21, 2012)

Well, you know how I feel about my D300.  By December if the D400 and/or D600 are released the market will be flooded with D300.  If both cameras are released I would imagine the price will drop to under $500 for an avg used D300.  I think I already mentioned in my other thread where I got mine with a 6 month warranty for 546 2 months ago.  You know I am a birder so the AF system is awesome in the D300 and IQ sure seems pretty good.  If you want 8 FPS you will need a grip.  I'm sure I will be shunned, but I got the cheapy ebay grip with charger, door and en-el4 for about $70.  Works great too.

I haven't been disappointed.  Just another bird.  Only needed 1 focus point for this one 




First Year Starling by krisinct, on Flickr


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 21, 2012)

What lens are you using CC?


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 21, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> What lens are you using CC?



Most people are shocked to know I shoot with a Tamron 200-500 F5-6.3.  I always shoot handheld and generally stopped down to f7.1 or F8.  I picked it up used locally on craigslist for $400 and I am constantly shocked how well it does.  Check my posts in the wildlife section.  Especially the Falcon, I am still in awe that I captured a Peregrine falcon!


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 22, 2012)

coastalconn said:


> Most people are shocked to know I shoot with a Tamron 200-500 F5-6.3.  I always shoot handheld and generally stopped down to f7.1 or F8.  I picked it up used locally on craigslist for $400 and I am constantly shocked how well it does.  Check my posts in the wildlife section.  Especially the Falcon, I am still in awe that I captured a Peregrine falcon!




Its just goes to show you that its not the gear....


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 22, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> coastalconn said:
> 
> 
> > Most people are shocked to know I shoot with a Tamron 200-500 F5-6.3.  I always shoot handheld and generally stopped down to f7.1 or F8.  I picked it up used locally on craigslist for $400 and I am constantly shocked how well it does.  Check my posts in the wildlife section.  Especially the Falcon, I am still in awe that I captured a Peregrine falcon!
> ...



How does this show you that?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 22, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> How does this show you that?




He shoots a 200-500 5-6.3 third party lens, hand held. The typical opinion of that would be that he lens isn't good enough, and *GASP* he isn't using a tripod. And yet he's churning out good images. He's doing just fine without the hefty $6000 300mm 2.8 VRII...


----------



## Derrel (Aug 22, 2012)

I guess the OP has a preference for a higher class of camera than the D7000...the D300 body has a more-refined fit,finish, and "feel" to it than the D90 or the D7000 have. it's simply a higher "class" of camera body than the D7000.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 22, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I guess the OP has a preference for a higher class of camera than the D7000...the D300 body has a more-refined fit,finish, and "feel" to it than the D90 or the D7000 have. it's simply a higher "class" of camera body than the D7000.




Yeah well.. me and my two cent ho of a D90 been doin real good work and aint had no complaints.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 22, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > How does this show you that?
> ...



That's not exactly a shot that calls for anything extraordinary. However, I challenge one to take the same shot with a 50mm, from the same distance.


----------



## teribithia (Aug 22, 2012)

The newest is not he best sometimes, the suitable is the best I think.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 22, 2012)

coastalconn said:


> Well, you know how I feel about my D300.  By December if the D400 and/or D600 are released the market will be flooded with D300.  If both cameras are released I would imagine the price will drop to under $500 for an avg used D300.  I think I already mentioned in my other thread where I got mine with a 6 month warranty for 546 2 months ago.  You know I am a birder so the AF system is awesome in the D300 and IQ sure seems pretty good.  If you want 8 FPS you will need a grip.  I'm sure I will be shunned, but I got the cheapy ebay grip with charger, door and en-el4 for about $70.  Works great too.
> 
> I haven't been disappointed.  Just another bird.  Only needed 1 focus point for this one
> 
> ...




I agree!!! And that's why I'm almost ready to do this!!!
Your images are awesome!!!


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 22, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I guess the OP has a preference for a higher class of camera than the D7000...the D300 body has a more-refined fit,finish, and "feel" to it than the D90 or the D7000 have. it's simply a higher "class" of camera body than the D7000.



Bingo!!! Yes!!! I held one and that's all it took... still love my D90, but I don't the D90's replacement...


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 22, 2012)

teribithia said:


> The newest is not he best sometimes, the suitable is the best I think.



Agreed!!!! Thanks...


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 22, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> uhhh... the D700 has an auto DX mode, so every lens that he owns would work just fine.



I think you misunderstood my post.  I said that his current lenses would be very useful, not completely unusable. I know the D700 has a DX mode, but at that point you've basically got a 5.5MP D300 sensor.  You have NONE of the reasons for even buying a FF body in the first place other than some slight low light improvement which, unless you shoot ISO3200 or higher, you're likely not to even notice.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 22, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > uhhh... the D700 has an auto DX mode, so every lens that he owns would work just fine.
> ...



I agree. I don't need FX, nor do I need to pay for it.
Look at my main lens... the 18-300 VR DX. It says it all. I am fine with DX.
I have not outgrown my D90. I still love it. But I want a second body, so I'm going with the D300, soon.
I seldom shoot above ISO 1600, and the D90 is great at ISO 1600, to me.
Bam!!!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 22, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the OP has a preference for a higher class of camera than the D7000...the D300 body has a more-refined fit,finish, and "feel" to it than the D90 or the D7000 have. it's simply a higher "class" of camera body than the D7000.
> ...



No slam was meant in the making of this post. No D90's were harmed in the making of this post. All similarities between this post and actual D90's were entirely unintentional. No actual resemblance to any two cent ho's was intended. TPF is an equal opportunity slam fest.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 22, 2012)

We use a D90 as well and love it. Putting money away now for a new camera and we are strongly considering a D300s instead of a D7000. We want to stay with a DX body since we dont really have a need for FX.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 22, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> That's not exactly a shot that calls for anything extraordinary. However, I challenge one to take the same shot with a 50mm, from the same distance.


Umm, what's your point?  Why would I shoot with a 50mm?  My point is good shots are obtainable without having the newest and best of everything.  That particular shot goes against the grain of what birders think.  There is very fine feather detail that I should not be "able" to attain with a 3rd party 500mm especially handheld.  Perhaps I should shoot Ospreys with a macro lens?



Osprey with fish 8/22 by krisinct, on Flickr


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 22, 2012)

coastalconn said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > That's not exactly a shot that calls for anything extraordinary. However, I challenge one to take the same shot with a 50mm, from the same distance.
> ...



My point is, the equipment matters. Can you get great shots with off brand gear? Yup. You don't have have the best to get great shots, but you still need specific equipment to pull of a shot. Can't get a shot like that
with a 50mm, because it can't reach. Therefore, the equipment makes a difference.  

As for you saying that you shouldn't be able to obtain the image with a 3rd party lens, what does that mean exactly? Are you doing something that's allowing you to go past the limits of your gear? 

Also, you can shoot anything hand held at a fast enough shutter speed. You're at 508mm @ 1/1250; what's so special about this being hand held?


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 22, 2012)

Also, let it be known that I don't think that your shots are not good.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 22, 2012)

Ok, can we agree on this?  Often in photo forums many people give advice to buy the newest, and most expensive gear out there.  Quite often top of the line gear is great if you can afford it,  but a camera is just a tool and with proper knowledge, technique and lighting great results are possible with "dated" technology.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 22, 2012)

coastalconn said:


> Ok, can we agree on this?  Often in photo forums many people give advice to buy the newest, and most expensive gear out there.  Quite often top of the line gear is great if you can afford it,  but a camera is just a tool and with proper knowledge, technique and lighting great results are possible with "dated" technology.



There's much more to it than that though. You're not using dated technology. You're using an older camera, but it's not obsolete to the point where it makes these shots "hard".
In otherwords, lower tier equipment is capable of good things.


----------



## Bukitimah (Aug 24, 2012)

I own a d5000 and trade that for a d300 slightly more than a year ago. I can't say it is the camera but I can see improvements. It could be my lenses and technique but I certainly prefer the d300 feel. 

I don't have experience with many models but the ability to switch Modes such as ISO without going through the menu helps. The camera is just 1 part of your hardware.  I feel the lenses are equally, if not more important.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 24, 2012)

Bukitimah said:


> I own a d5000 and trade that for a d300 slightly more than a year ago. I can't say it is the camera but I can see improvements. It could be my lenses and technique but I certainly prefer the d300 feel.
> 
> I don't have experience with many models but the ability to switch Modes such as ISO without going through the menu helps. The camera is just 1 part of your hardware.  I feel the lenses are equally, if not more important.



Good to hear.... I owned a D5000 once and when I held it and then used my D90 the next day, I would love my D90 and dislike the D5000, simply because of the build quality. I know I'm in for a real treat with the D300.


----------



## Bukitimah (Aug 24, 2012)

Just to share here. The only 'problem' I have with my D300 is the eyecup. I find it too flush to the body and I am wearing glasses. I have been asking around and received various answers. Most say I need to modify before the parts can be fitted into the camera.

Well, I did the simpliest thing which I didn't do initially. That is to consult Nikon Service Centre. The person that answers my call told me it is not possible. I am not giving up and I wrote them an email. A guy from NSC call and invited me to their show room. Hey, no modification required. This is what you get and all parts are original from Nikon.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 24, 2012)

Well at the risk of getting attacked again,  I had a D5000 then D90 and now the D300.  For me once I got the D90, I never used the D5000 again, I sold it.  I'm at the same point now.  I have the D300 and have only kept the D90 so far as a back up.  I never use it, I like the D300 that much more.  FWIW


----------



## BRN1 (Aug 25, 2012)

coastalconn said:
			
		

> Umm, what's your point?  Why would I shoot with a 50mm?  My point is good shots are obtainable without having the newest and best of everything.  That particular shot goes against the grain of what birders think.  There is very fine feather detail that I should not be "able" to attain with a 3rd party 500mm especially handheld.  Perhaps I should shoot Ospreys with a macro lens?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn/7838640672/
> Osprey with fish 8/22 by krisinct, on Flickr



If you get close enough for that, please post the results! (in macro mode of course)


----------



## warwick (Aug 26, 2012)

Hello again I start with a canon 300d and than d200 which shouldn't of sold  and then d3 and a d7000 . The best camera is the one you like to used all the time and that for me is the d3!!!


----------



## manaheim (Aug 26, 2012)

Unless you're buying used, buying a D300 or even a D300s right now seems a little crazy to me. (and I have a D300... it's been a wonderful performer for me for some years now)

There are a number of options anticipated right around the corner, including even the D600 (granted, you'll really need FF lenses to make that work).  But seriously... the D300 is crusty as heck at this point and likely to be replaced fairly soon.  AND really NOT that much better than your D90.  Better?  Yes.  Enough to justify dropping $1500-1800 when a new one is right around the corner?  No way.  (mind you... the way Nikon works, right around the corner may mean this time next year... but still...)


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 26, 2012)

manaheim said:


> .  Enough to justify dropping $1500-1800 when a new one is right around the corner?  No way.  (mind you... the way Nikon works, right around the corner may mean this time next year... but still...)



$1500-1800 would be insane.  Used D300 are going for around $600 which I took advantage of 2 months ago and I think that is the OP's plan...


----------



## JDFlood (Aug 27, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:
			
		

> Considering how much a D300s is, it would be foolish not to buy a (used) D700 instead.



I have to agree. I may be jaded, but long term, I am sure the DX sensor series goes away. I think the cost difference is temporary and in a few years... Bye bye. Then you have a bunch of lenses that are crippling for an FX camera.... Get an FX! jD


----------



## manaheim (Aug 27, 2012)

JDFlood said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Buying a D700 is a very different vector. You need to have full frame glass to do this and do it effectively, unless you want all of your pictures to be 5MP.  This means you have to have an investment in full frame glass already, or have enough to buy at least one FF lens.

The more logical decision is used D300S or used D7000.  Personally, if choosing between those two I'd say used D7000.  It's an all-around better camera, unfortunately... even though the D300S has a leg up in some areas.


----------



## shadowlands (Aug 29, 2012)

manaheim said:


> JDFlood said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...



No, I'd buy a used D300 body for $600.00-$650.00, not new....
And I don't need a D300s for I own the D90. Don't need the video option, etc....
I don't want the D7000 because it's the size of the D90. I want the helf/bulk of the D300 (build).


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 29, 2012)

JDFlood said:


> I may be jaded, but long term, I am sure the DX sensor series goes away. I think the cost difference is temporary and in a few years... Bye bye. Then you have a bunch of lenses that are crippling for an FX camera.... Get an FX! jD



You think the DX sensor goes away, why?  Because it's smaller and everyone will want the larger FX sensor?  Following this logic, they made a major mistake in introducing the all new CX sensor size since, in time, they'll kill all small sensors.  BTW, lets assume that the difference in cost does become negligible between a DX and FX sensor in the future... the glass will still be more expensive so consumers wouldn't really save much.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 29, 2012)

mjhoward said:
			
		

> You think the DX sensor goes away, why?  Because it's smaller and everyone will want the larger FX sensor?  Following this logic, they made a major mistake in introducing the all new CX sensor size since, in time, they'll kill all small sensors.  BTW, lets assume that the difference in cost does become negligible between a DX and FX sensor in the future... the glass will still be more expensive so consumers wouldn't really save much.



These kind of things are all a matter of speculation... Educated, semi-educated, or otherwise.

I tend to agree, though... At least in the dslr line I think you will see dx sensors fade away.  If the reported price of the d600 is real, you already see the beginnings of it.  Why would I buy a D300s for $1600 when I could buy the D600 for $1800? 

Those prices are off a bit, I think, and obviously we may see a d400 soon, but what is a d400 going to give me that would compel me to not buy the 600 for essentially the same price?  Frankly I've been wondering if the d400 is ever going to show... Unless its a FX 18mp or something, why bother?  A 24mp dx would be sort of ok I guess, but at what price point?  The d600 basically demonstrates compression.  On paper it squeezes out the tier that was the d100,d200,d300 level.

And you have reuse.  Every couple years you see a lower tier model get the sensor from a bigger brother.  D70 got the D100 sensor I believe... D80 got the d200 sensor, d90 got the d300 sensor... And then the d7000 kicked the d300s sensor in the ass. Even more support to the argument, if a slightly different strut. 

So I think in another three years we see Fx sensors creep into the d5000 level (just reuse that d600 sensor, now cheaper to produce), and then it's pretty much over.


----------



## greybeard (Aug 29, 2012)

It's your money, buy whatever you want.


----------



## JDFlood (Aug 30, 2012)

mjhoward said:
			
		

> You think the DX sensor goes away, why?  Because it's smaller and everyone will want the larger FX sensor?  Following this logic, they made a major mistake in introducing the all new CX sensor size since, in time, they'll kill all small sensors.  BTW, lets assume that the difference in cost does become negligible between a DX and FX sensor in the future... the glass will still be more expensive so consumers wouldn't really save much.



It is simple economics. Over time the cost of sensors go down, so you end up with two lines of R&D to support two lines of cameras with hardly any cost difference  of manufacture. If you combine the lines, you can combine your R&D teams and double the production volume of the remaining lines of cameras. When sensors cost a buck or two... And your putting them into the same form / function cases... You discontinue the line. You have to, if you don't Your competition will and have a huge price advantage. You combine or go out of business.


----------

