D300s or D7000?

Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
342
Location
Inukjuak, Canadian Eastern Arctic
I've checked out both and the 7000 which is much lighter with low noise up to 3200 ISO while the D300 goes to 1600 ISO. BUT! I have a D200 which uses the same batteries and card as the D300s. Going for the newer D7000 all that would change.
????
I've shot indoor sports with the D200 and it wasn't to bad, but could be better. Using primes.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,743
Location
Australia
Samples of high ISO from the D7000. Converted from RAW in Capture One Pro6, then used Noiseware Professional in Photoshop:

ISO6400

original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


ISO3200:

original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
1,304
Location
Kitchener, ON
I've checked out both and the 7000 which is much lighter with low noise up to 3200 ISO while the D300 goes to 1600 ISO. BUT! I have a D200 which uses the same batteries and card as the D300s. Going for the newer D7000 all that would change.
????
I've shot indoor sports with the D200 and it wasn't to bad, but could be better. Using primes.

You're going to find you want bigger cards than you have today anyway. The Sandisk 8gb SD cards are reasonable right now.

You can shoot a lot more photos with one battery on the D7000 than you are used to right now. The only real reason you should have a second battery is if you are like me and a bit forgetful in getting batteries recharged. Or, you use it to shoot video. Otherwise, you'll have a hard time using up a battery in a day.

I guess what I'm saying is batteries and cards are low on my list of priorities when choosing a camera. If you are going on a long trip without decent access to power, that could change the story.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,743
Location
Australia
Pics are awesome, but I'm looking at the compatibility with what I have now as well??

Thank you for the nice comment.

All these photos were taken with the 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 2x TCIII except for the last shot which was taken with the 70-200 f2.8 VRII only.

I should imagine that your line up of lenses should work just as well as they are all of excellent quality, except maybe the 18-200 VR, which may be shown up in some instances.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
342
Location
Inukjuak, Canadian Eastern Arctic
Thank you for the nice comment.

All these photos were taken with the 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 2x TCIII except for the last shot which was taken with the 70-200 f2.8 VRII only.

I should imagine that your line up of lenses should work just as well as they are all of excellent quality, except maybe the 18-200 VR, which may be shown up in some instances.

Tks. I love all those lens and as you said the low one is the 18-200 VR, which I use only if I have no choice.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Granite Bay, CA
Is there something about your D200 that you don't like? If higher ISO shooting is your thing, than the D7k is probably the way to go. Handling wise, the D300s will be closer to your D200 and has a greater buffer capacity than the D7k.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
342
Location
Inukjuak, Canadian Eastern Arctic
Is there something about your D200 that you don't like? If higher ISO shooting is your thing, than the D7k is probably the way to go. Handling wise, the D300s will be closer to your D200 and has a greater buffer capacity than the D7k.

Thanks for that info. Buffer size is important if your doing fast sports like hockey, basketball etc...I found that my D200 was lacking for indoor sports in poor lighting.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,129
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Is there something about your D200 that you don't like? If higher ISO shooting is your thing, than the D7k is probably the way to go. Handling wise, the D300s will be closer to your D200 and has a greater buffer capacity than the D7k.

Actually, the buffer size is pretty much the same between the D300s and D7000 - it's the increased file size due to higher sensor resolution that reduces the number of frames you can fit in the buffer.

On the other hand, the D7000 shoots 14-bit raw at 6 fps - the D300s can only do 2.5 fps at the highest quality!

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
21
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
You're going to find you want bigger cards than you have today anyway. The Sandisk 8gb SD cards are reasonable right now.

You can shoot a lot more photos with one battery on the D7000 than you are used to right now. The only real reason you should have a second battery is if you are like me and a bit forgetful in getting batteries recharged. Or, you use it to shoot video. Otherwise, you'll have a hard time using up a battery in a day.

I guess what I'm saying is batteries and cards are low on my list of priorities when choosing a camera. If you are going on a long trip without decent access to power, that could change the story.

Only 2 Mpix difference between D200 & D300.

D300 battery lasted me ~800 shots (down to 30%) shooting RAW + JPG with 70-200 + 1.7 TC in lowish light with a lot of AF + VR at Melbourne Grand Prix several weeks ago. NOTE: I specifically brought new batteries for my D70 ages ago with the D200 in mind. You cant use the standard D70 battery in the D200/300.

Reuse of batteries + cards were one of the reasons I went to a D300 from a D70, instead of a D7000, along with potentially better AF for motor-racing and bigger buffer. I was hitting D300 buffer limits at times too.

Cleaner high ISO capability would have been nice during some of the shots I was doing in the Melbourne Gaol and Victoria Markets though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
63
Location
Southern California
Samples of high ISO from the D7000. Converted from RAW in Capture One Pro6, then used Noiseware Professional in Photoshop:

hi lance,

i've been considering a d90 vs. d7k also. i've spent what seems like hours on the imaging-resource website comparing high-iso photographs between them.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7000/FULLRES/D7000hSLI01600_NR0.HTM

i'm trying to shoot my daughter's school theater productions. i had almost come to the decision to save myself a few bucks and get the d90 since i really didn't see a lot of difference between the iso1600 & iso3200 photos that they have posted there. then i came to this thread and saw your pics......wow, :m71: you've definitely swung the choice towards the d7k (although i'm sure your skill is just as much to blame for the great images as the camera). just wow.

thanks for sharing.

-richard
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
1,905
Location
USA
If you do indoor sports the focus of the D300s might come in handy.

Does anyone have night time high iso shots. I find well lit places are easy to cover high iso. The true test is in dark places
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Granite Bay, CA
Andre,
If you haven't already, you might want to take a look at Thom Hogan's review of the D7k. I feel he does a good job of objectively evaluating and comparing the D7000 to the D300/s.

http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm

From the review, the D7000 looks pretty capable. I love my D300 and wouldn't think of trading it out at the moment, but you'll need to decide how important the size/handling characteristics of the Dx00 series Nikons are in order to make the decision for yourself. I don't think you'll be disappointed either way.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
340
Location
Ventura County, So Cal
Love your animals. Great captures.

The EXIF shows a number of your sample shots takes with a lens with a max aperture of f5.7 (5.6?) and a focal length in the 100-200 mm range. Were you using a 70-300 or an 80-400?
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
342
Location
Inukjuak, Canadian Eastern Arctic
Love your animals. Great captures.

The EXIF shows a number of your sample shots takes with a lens with a max aperture of f5.7 (5.6?) and a focal length in the 100-200 mm range. Were you using a 70-300 or an 80-400?

I have several lens that would fit that. Depends on which captures you are talking about. For a while I was using my 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4 xTC

My other lens that I'm trying to get the hang with is the 150-500mm VR

But with either I have to crawl on all fours to get close if I don't want to crop.

Oh and Tks :)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom