# Nikon D300s Vs. Nikon D7000



## timarp000

Some people say that the d7000 is better.
I take wildlife, macro and landscape pictures.
I will be buying a 24-85 VR , 70-300 VR and a 60mm macro. with these 3 lenses i get a $300 discount on the lenses.
Which camera will benefit my need. and which one is better in low light?


----------



## coastalconn

D7000 better for lowlight and most other things...
D300(s) better for sports and wildlife...

There is no right answer..  Always a compromise...


----------



## timarp000

The D300s has 7fps and the d7000 has 6fps. will 1 fps make a difference? And will the D300s have better weather sealing.


----------



## coastalconn

Fwiw, for the most part 1fps will not make a difference, but what might is the af system in the d300...  Just my humble opinion..


----------



## timarp000

So which one should i go for?


----------



## coastalconn

My personal decision shouldn't affect yours..  I'm a birder and I would pick the best AF system every time and with grip my d300 is 8FPS.  I have only heard the the d7000 AF system is not as good, but that is not from my personal experience..  Plus I got a used d300 for only 550.  So it was a no brainer for me.  Of course ymmv..


----------



## timarp000

Now ill wait for some other opnions...


----------



## orb9220

Hmmm real tough call. But for outdoors and wildlife. My lean would go D300 as faster AF and weatherize and robust build. If not concerned about hiking & banging through the woods on a regular basis then robust comes less of an issue. And wanting landscapes in the mix then the lean goes to increased dynamic range and low light performance of the D7000.

No easy answer as can lean one way or the other till I got dizzy and fell over.
.


----------



## timarp000

The D300s is $700 more. it it worth it?
If the d7000 low light performance is better, my how much? (1/2, 1, 2 stops)
and how much better is the AF system of the D300s?


----------



## KmH

Yes, the D300s has better weather sealing.

There are other features some may want to consider.

The D300s (D7000) has:


51 focus points (39)
15 cross-type focus points (9)
can do 9 auto brackets (compared to 3)
has a 10-pin connector (none)
has a flash PC port (none)
has a full magnesium-alloy metal chassis (has magnesium-alloy top and back plates)


----------



## TheFantasticG

How serious into macro are you? If "meh" then you'll be fine with the 12mp. If you shoot over 10,000 macro frames a year then go with the 16mp.


----------



## timarp000

How will megapixels matter anyway? i'm buying a macro lens so i dont need to crop ar anything. I take macro pics often. Again the D7000 is a better performer in low light(High ISO) than the D300s. But how much better is it?


----------



## TonysTouch

What would you be shooting that needs better low light performance?


----------



## TheFantasticG

timarp000 said:
			
		

> How will megapixels matter anyway? i'm buying a macro lens so i dont need to crop ar anything. I take macro pics often. Again the D7000 is a better performer in low light(High ISO) than the D300s. But how much better is it?



Ok. Sounds like you have it figured out that you will never need to crop a photo. Great.

Go look at photozone.de or dpreview.com -- you can even search the Internet as there are dozens of reviews of both of these cameras with ISo examples and all. Thats what I do when reading about a product i want to purchase.


----------



## timarp000

"What would you be shooting that needs better low light performance?"

Landscapes, cityscapes(at Night/Sunset) an if i need to use very fast shutter speeds while shooting wildlife to freeze the action.


----------



## timarp000

Nikon D7000 Review: Digital Photography Review
Here they show examples of noise. I will shoot RAW so will in-camera noise reduction work. Im seeing these sames at ISO 3200(without noise reduction) and regretting shooting RAW. but will post-production noise reduction using Adobe Lightroom work better than In Camera noise reduction?


----------



## jaomul

The buffer in the d300 will also allow more shots before its full,this may be of benefit. The d7000 may be slightly better in low light but the d300 is still a good low light camera. I think the d300 build is something I would consider better for a camera that would be used for wildlife due the weather element


----------



## pixmedic

heres a few reviews i found. your best bet is still to find a good camera store that carries the D7000 and D300s and try them both. 

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Nikon D300S vs D7000 - Our Analysis

there are advantages to both cameras...you will just have to see which of their features caters to your specific needs  best.  make sure you go out and do your due diligence with your research on these cameras, and NOT run out and buy something solely based on some advice you got from people on the internet. Its not our money your spending. Go physically look at both cameras, try them out, see how they feel.


----------



## timarp000

Nikon D7000 Review: Digital Photography Review

Here the D300s looks like it has better noise performance than the d7000(not charts, only samples)


----------



## IgsEMT

If you got the $, then go for higher model. There are reasons, as KMH pointed out, why 300s is better then 7000.
But if want to save some money and/or invest it into glass, then go for 7000.

d300s is one of my bodies, it's been serving me for the last 2+ yrs and will be doing so for years to come. 
D7000, for me, isn't practical since its lacking pc-port, but autofocus on video is nice though.

In the image quality, I doubt you'll see the difference at ISOs lover then 800/1000. At the same time, just think back 10yrs ago, how higher film speed wasn't as practical and technique was a factor in getting the shot. 
It's a tough call, when comparing cameras that are very close to each other but you need to think not just what you'll be shooting tomorrow, BUT what you possible be shooting next week.

Good Luck
Joe


----------



## KmH

timarp000 said:


> "What would you be shooting that needs better low light performance?"
> 
> Landscapes, cityscapes(at Night/Sunset) an if i need to use very fast shutter speeds while shooting wildlife to freeze the action.


Landscape and cityscapes are usually done using a low native ISO and long shutter times so the image has minimal image noise, not high ISO.

Shooting wildlife in low light you will find that your biggest issue will be that auto focus won't work very well, regardless what ISO setting you use. Plus, to get enough light with a fast shutter speed you would have to use a wide lens aperture which may give you focus sharpness issues related to to shallow a DoF. Zoom lenses with sufficient reach and maximum aperture are very expensive.
*$5,800 USD* - Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Super Telephoto Prime Lens


----------



## fjrabon

The D300 is probably your better bet for wildlife unless you shoot at lot at dusk or dawn.  

Biggest factors for wildlife are: 

1) AF system.  The D7000 has an excellent autofocus system.  The D300's autofocus system is LEGENDARY.  I think I prefer to the D300's autofocus to any camera Ive ever used, easily beats the D7000 in a landslide.  Heck, it wipes the floor with a Canon 5D Mk III.  You can fix a lot of things these days in post.  You can't fix missing focus.  

2) build quality.  The D7000 has pretty good build quality.  The D300 is built like a combo of a tank and a submarine (only a slight exaggeration).  

(the next two points are tied, depending on how you shoot and when you shoot.  for some shooters one is way more important than the other, for some they're equally important)

3) High ISO performance: A lot of animals are at their most active around dawn and dusk.  And the atmospheric elements you get at these times can take a normal, good shot of an animal into a breathtakingly stunning shot.  The D7000 wins here.  (and to answer a different questions, yes, post processing noise reduction will work better than in camera noise reduction, especially photoshop's noise reduction (or one of the specialized noise reduction programs) but the less noise you start with, the better).  Additionally, something people often forget about is high ISO desaturation and loss of contrast and definition.  The D7000 wins in this regard as well.  There's very little high ISO desaturation on the D7000.  The D300 isn't bad, but it is noticeable.  

3) burst speed and burst duration.  The D7000 has a pretty short buffer, meaning that you can't shoot in high speed burst very long.  It also uses SD cards, which write slower than CF cards (the D300 has a dual CF SD setup, meaning that you use one of each, which is BY FAR my favorite setup for memory cards).  Gripped the D300 will shoot 8 fps, which combined with its accurate focus system and longer duration means you pretty rarely miss THE SHOT.  It also means you can fill up memory cards IN A HURRY, haha.  Burst speed and especially duration is definitely one of the areas that Nikon compromised on the D7000, while very little outside of like a D4 beats the burst of the D300.  

5) Resolution.  You gotta crop for wildlife shots pretty often, especially if your wildlife shots include birds.  The D7000 beats the D300 in resolution pretty handily.  It can take fairly extensive cropping, whereas you don't want to crop a shot on a D300 too much.  This is especially true if you're shooting above ISO 400, when not only will the lack of resolution on a D300 hurt for crops, but even at ISO 800, a D300 gets very noisy if you crop very much.


----------



## timarp000

It looks like the D7000 is only better in high iso tests... well i hope the new d400 comes out soon! so i can buy that instead of the d300s as im not in a great hurry... but i really want the D400 to come out SOON!


----------



## TonysTouch

You will probably have to wait a while for this one. That is, if it is released. Unfortunately, Nikon might be trying to usher pro DX users into FX.


----------



## fjrabon

timarp000 said:


> It looks like the D7000 is only better in high iso tests... well i hope the new d400 comes out soon! so i can buy that instead of the d300s as im not in a great hurry... but i really want the D400 to come out SOON!



Define slightly better.  To me, there's a pretty marked difference.  Again, with certain types of shooting the difference doesnt really matter, but it is certainly there, and as far as differences in high ISO performance go, it's a fairly large difference.


----------



## Derrel

timarp000 said:


> It looks like the D7000 is only better in high iso tests... well i hope the new d400 comes out soon! so i can buy that instead of the d300s as im not in a great hurry... but i really want the D400 to come out SOON!



February, 2013 is when Thom Hogan has written that he expects the next mid-range Nikon to be announced.


----------



## mjhoward

timarp000 said:


> It looks like the D7000 is only better in high iso tests...



...oh, and in Dynamic Range and Color Depth with a higher SNR.


----------



## Derrel

I might be mistaken, but I think the D7000 has the BEST image quality (along with the Pentax K-r, which uses the same sensor) in both RAW, and in out-of-camera JPEG, of any model of APS-C camera. And dPreview states that it is the best APS-C camera at high ISO shooting. So...the idea that the D300s and D7000 are "close" in image quality, and especially at elevated ISO levels, is not quite right. From what I see, the D7000's highest usable, normal ISO value is 6,400...which to me is still incredible. I think fjrabon's comments in post #22 are great comments about how the two cameras compare,and how they differ.


----------



## fjrabon

Derrel said:


> I might be mistaken, but I think the D7000 has the BEST image quality (along with the Pentax K-r, which uses the same sensor) in both RAW, and in out-of-camera JPEG, of any model of APS-C camera. And dPreview states that it is the best APS-C camera at high ISO shooting. So...the idea that the D300s and D7000 are "close" in image quality, and especially at elevated ISO levels, is not quite right. From what I see, the D7000's highest usable, normal ISO value is 6,400...which to me is still incredible. I think fjrabon's comments in post #22 are great comments about how the two cameras compare,and how they differ.



Yep.  I've gotten to the point where I can absolutely tell the difference between a shot on a 7D and a D7000 in a matter of seconds in a high ISO setting.  

While I am hoping for a new update to the D300, I just don't know how Nikon/Sony would include the image quality from the D7000 on a crop sensor.  They'll probably surprise me and actually pull it off, but as of now, I'm just hoping for something that's like a D7000, but in a D300 body, with a faster burst rate and a bigger memory buffer.  The rumors are that the reason it's taken so long for Nikon to update the D7000 thus far is that Sony simply hasn't been able to improve on the crop sensor that is at its heart.  Almost all the recent sensor improvements have been full frame.  We are still yet to see an improved sensor since Sony came out with their last best crop frame sensor.


----------



## timarp000

i hope the D400 would  be a D300s with a d7000 sensor...


----------



## shadowlands

Isn't the D300/D300s 8 frames per second with the grip and right batteries?


----------



## TonysTouch

shadowlands said:


> Isn't the D300/D300s 8 frames per second with the grip and right batteries?



Yes, and I love it!

It has to be gripped with an EN-EL4(a) battery.


----------

