# Opinion on D7000 or D300s???



## lafaphotography (Jun 6, 2011)

Hey guys... i am new to the forums but not new to photography... My first DSLR a few yrs ago was the canon xti then i switched to try out the nikon d5000 and liked it... but then i had the chance to get a 50d and i did... loved all 3 cameras.. I have recently sold the 50d because i got a little more then what i paid for it and figured it would be a good oportunity to upgrade... so here i am... I was looking at the d300s but then people started to tell me that the d7000 is just as good and will do the same if not more then the d300s.... whats your opinion on these 2 cameras or should i go with something different ???? my budget would be around 2k for a camera. keep in mind that i am by no means a professional but i am trying to work towards that... :thumbup:


btw, here are some of my pics..
Flickr: Lafa Photography's Photostream



thanks in advanced guys


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 6, 2011)

I like my D7000. Then again I'd like a D300s (may get one when they upgrade it with a new one). Anyway, here is a side by side comparison for what its worth.

Nikon D7000 vs Nikon D300S - Newer is Better - DigitalRev.com


----------



## Ross Images (Jun 6, 2011)

Hey 

Been considering the D7000 for a while now but it doesnt seem to offer much that the D90 doesnt, do you need two memory slots??

Chow
Paul 
Ross Images - Home


----------



## jdag (Jun 6, 2011)

Ross Images said:


> Hey
> 
> Been considering the D7000 for a while now but it doesnt seem to offer much that the D90 doesnt, do you need two memory slots??
> 
> ...



I had a D90, and just bought a D7000 last week.  I can tell you that there is significantly more functionality that extra slots.  Focus system, ISO performance, 6 fps vs 4.5 fps for the D90, user defined saved settings, etc.   In fact, I believe the delta between the 2 is greater than I anticipated.


----------



## flea77 (Jun 6, 2011)

I was faced with the same choice between the D300s and a D7000, I went for the D7000 as I wanted the better high ISO perfromance (the D300s and D90 share the same sensor so no upgrade there). 

There is a HUGE difference between the D90 and D7000, much faster in all respects, higher resolution so better cropping ability, dual slots so I have a real time backup so no lost shots due to bad cards, weather sealing, etc etc etc.

Allan


----------



## ghache (Jun 7, 2011)

i owned both d90 and d7000 and the d7000 is a far superior camera hands down. d300s is still a great camera but i would buy d7000 again.


----------



## Ross Images (Jun 7, 2011)

Great I think I should go play with a d7000 some more and see if it changes my mind.


----------



## lafaphotography (Jun 8, 2011)

bump up.... anyone else???

thanks for the help so far guys... 

what about a canon 60d or a 7d?


----------



## flea77 (Jun 8, 2011)

OK, now you are swapping brands and that introduces a whole new aspect. You need to go to a camera store and play with say a 7D and D7000 and see which one fits your hand better, which one has a layout that makes more sense, which one has a better menu structure, and then pick that one. Everyone responds to the camera in the hand differently. I know people who absolutely love their Canons, I can't stand them, not because they are not good cameras but because I think the layout and controls are garbage and confusing. Nikon however makes perfect sense to me. Everyone is different, you need to try them yourself.

Allan


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 8, 2011)

Please let us know which one you elect to purchase.


----------



## lafaphotography (Jun 8, 2011)

Allan.... i have been to the store and i have tried both of them out... i am not siding with either of them as i like the feel of both companies, so it all comes down to which camera produces a better quality shot. I am not a complete noobie to these cameras, however i do want to start making this a career and would like to dedicate more time to it. I am leaning more towards nikon as i liked the controls better, however i am not against buying a canon as i have owned 2 canon dslrs' in the past and they did not disappoint. 

My main choices are:
D300s
D7000
7D
**possibly a 60d (but most likely not)


----------



## jdag (Jun 8, 2011)

lafaphotography said:


> Allan.... i have been to the store and i have tried both of them out... i am not siding with either of them as i like the feel of both companies, so it all comes down to which camera produces a better quality shot. I am not a complete noobie to these cameras, however i do want to start making this a career and would like to dedicate more time to it. I am leaning more towards nikon as i liked the controls better, however i am not against buying a canon as i have owned 2 canon dslrs' in the past and they did not disappoint.
> 
> My main choices are:
> D300s
> ...


 
The body selection ultimately is less important than the lens(es) you decide to purchase.  I truly enjoy my Nikon system, and am committed to it, but I also envy some of the lenses Canon offers (for instance the 70-200 f/4).  So sure, puck the body you like the most, but don't forget to consider the glass options.


----------



## lafaphotography (Jun 8, 2011)

jdag said:


> lafaphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Allan.... i have been to the store and i have tried both of them out... i am not siding with either of them as i like the feel of both companies, so it all comes down to which camera produces a better quality shot. I am not a complete noobie to these cameras, however i do want to start making this a career and would like to dedicate more time to it. I am leaning more towards nikon as i liked the controls better, however i am not against buying a canon as i have owned 2 canon dslrs' in the past and they did not disappoint.
> ...


 

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.


----------



## jdag (Jun 8, 2011)

lafaphotography said:


> jdag said:
> 
> 
> > lafaphotography said:
> ...


 
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.


----------



## lafaphotography (Jun 8, 2011)

jdag said:


> lafaphotography said:
> 
> 
> > jdag said:
> ...


 


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


----------



## jdag (Jun 8, 2011)

lafaphotography said:


> jdag said:
> 
> 
> > lafaphotography said:
> ...


 
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 (Jun 8, 2011)

thanks for the help!!!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 8, 2011)

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 (Jun 8, 2011)

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 (Jun 8, 2011)

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 (Jun 8, 2011)

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 (Jun 8, 2011)

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 (Jun 8, 2011)

IgsEMT said:


> 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.
> ...


 
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 (Jun 8, 2011)

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 (Jun 9, 2011)

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 (Jun 9, 2011)

Derrel said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2011)

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 (Oct 10, 2011)

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 (Oct 10, 2011)

billydoo73 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------

