Solid replacement for D300?

Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
1,329
Location
Janesville, WI
Hi, guys.

I've been shooting with a D300 since 2008, but I'm tired of getting subpar(or worse) sports shooting in low-light situations due to less-than-desirable ISO speeds.

What, in your own opinion(s) would be a solid upgrade to the D300?

I have my eye on the D800, but, since I'm than likely going to be on a semi-strict budget, I'm looking at the D7100, simply because of you get the FX ISOs with the DX crop factor.

If I shouldn't go for the D7100, why? Is there something that I don't know about that may not make me happy with it?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,020
D7100. Game over. But the D400 is rummored to be out this fall and that may well be a game changer.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
1,848
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
John - The D7100 has gotten very good reviews but I would recommend that you handle one at your local dealer to see how you like the fit and build. I've got a D800 and it is pretty good in low light depending on how high you need to go with your ISO. I've attached a shot that was taken at the National Zoo at ISO 1000. The vertical was cropped out of the middle of the picture and I was using an 80-200 lens with a rather shakey stroboframe bracket on my monopod. The detail is pretty good but it is certainly not tack sharp. Other users have probably gotten better results with their D800s using better technique than I do. Good luck making your decision.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
491
Location
Orlando, FL
d600 why..i was in the same boat 1 yr ago. I have a d300s. Once I went full frame...a whole another world is now open!
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,982
Location
Oregon
I’ve been impressed by the D800 coming from a D300. I know nothing about the D7100. Photo below was taken in an almost no light end zone as this kid high stepped into the end zone. I never got anything like this with the D300. This was my first time with the D800 at night.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
576
Location
UK
Neither camera really gives you the burst shooting performance of the D300:

D7100 - No 8fps (grip) option, and (probably more significantly) only buffers 6 (14-bit) or 9 (12-bit) NEFs - i.e., ony 1-1.5 seconds at 6fps. More compact body handles rather differently - try one first.

D800 - Only 4 fps full frame.

Pretty much everything else is an upgrade, so it depends on how you shoot.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
2,967
Location
Sydney Australia
Neither camera really gives you the burst shooting performance of the D300:

D7100 - No 8fps (grip) option, and (probably more significantly) only buffers 6 (14-bit) or 9 (12-bit) NEFs - i.e., ony 1-1.5 seconds at 6fps. More compact body handles rather differently - try one first.

D800 - Only 4 fps full frame.

Pretty much everything else is an upgrade, so it depends on how you shoot.
Keep in mind with the grip and a D4 battery in DX mode you can get a an extra FPS or two out of the D800. This still puts it sligthly slower than the D7100 with less Mpix.

Just thought it best to have all the info out there.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
4,069
Location
Bellingham, WA
I asked B&H Photo what was a good upgrade for the D300, and they said D7100. So I pulled the plug and ordered one. Now that I've gotten used to it, it is amazing.

Carole
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
4,069
Location
Bellingham, WA
D7100 - No 8fps (grip) option, and (probably more significantly) only buffers 6 (14-bit) or 9 (12-bit) NEFs - i.e., ony 1-1.5 seconds at 6fps. More compact body handles rather differently - try one first.
Yes, you don't get the fps on the D7100, but the IQ is incredible. It is more compact and lighter. I decided to add the grip and I like the way it feels much better.

Carole
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,451
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Randy, a frequent poster on here and a full-time sports shooter, got the D7100 and love it.

Check out his reasons in this topic: https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=356519

Also check out this video from another pro sports photographer outlining why he likes the D7100 and says it replaces the D300s. http://youtu.be/OIvK7ixsiEY
sorry all those pics are gone since I moved to zenfolio from smugmug

the d7100 is a fine and nearly perfect DX body
learn to live with the buffer, get sandisk 95mb/s cards and you will be fine.
fps is not an issue, too many of us get spoiled by being able to rattle off 8-10 shots when 3-4 would be fine...

high iso is at least a full stop better than the d300, maybe more
DR is also noticeably better
AF blows away the D300
IQ with 24mpDX is outstanding

and the LCD is better than the D800/D4 LCD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
sorry all those pics are gone since I moved to zenfolio from smugmug
Yeah, right, you've never been sorry about anything ... :wink::tongue:

the d7100 is a fine and nearly perfect DX body
learn to live with the buffer, get sandisk 95mb/s cards and you will be fine.
fps is not an issue, too many of us get spoiled by being able to rattle off 8-10 shots when 3-4 would be fine...
Here we are in total agreement. One thing I really noticed over time is that I would usually have a couple of frames out of a burst that were no in focus. With the D800 and the D7100, I am no longer seeing that, overall my keeper rate is as good, if not better.

And I don't have so darned many to throw away anymore :eek:

high iso is at least a full stop better than the d300, maybe more
DR is also noticeably better
AF blows away the D300
IQ with 24mpDX is outstanding
I find the high ISO is at least 1.5 stops better myself. Totally agree with the other points.

and the LCD is better than the D800/D4 LCD

Not sure on this one, I think both the D800 and the D7100 are pretty darned good :wink:
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,451
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Yeah, right, you've never been sorry about anything ... :wink::tongue:



Here we are in total agreement. One thing I really noticed over time is that I would usually have a couple of frames out of a burst that were no in focus. With the D800 and the D7100, I am no longer seeing that, overall my keeper rate is as good, if not better.

And I don't have so darned many to throw away anymore :eek:



I find the high ISO is at least 1.5 stops better myself. Totally agree with the other points.




Not sure on this one, I think both the D800 and the D7100 are pretty darned good :wink:
the d7100's LCD is bigger and has more resoltion
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
the d7100's LCD is bigger and has more resoltion
I believe they are both 3.2", I generally don't worry much about size, but the D7100 does have more resolution, 1.2m vs 921,000.

My tired old eyes just aren't good enough to notice that much difference :wink:, and I am way too lazy to try to measure it anyway :biggrin:
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,451
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
I believe they are both 3.2", I generally don't worry much about size, but the D7100 does have more resolution, 1.2m vs 921,000.

My tired old eyes just aren't good enough to notice that much difference :wink:, and I am way too lazy to try to measure it anyway :biggrin:
If u don't measure it of course you don't worry about size

Wait

Did I say that:smile:
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
D800 or D7100 - depending on budget, how much you want to invest in FX lenses, and how much you value 36 MP at the wide end vs pixel density at the long end.

IMO, the D800 is the more versatile camera and beats the D7100 in almost everything except pixel density.

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
3,508
Location
North East, UK
Real Name
Colin Carter
If u don't measure it of course you don't worry about size

Wait

Did I say that:smile:
They are the same size at 3.2 inches and I believe the d7100 adds an extra white pixel to the RGB array which is how they get 1.2m dots as opposed to 921k dots from the old screens but the resolution is the same for displaying photos, the difference is the rendering of the text in info mode, they have changed that completely to smooth fonts but who looks at that for long anyway.

Supposed to give extra contrast I think. No doubt all future Nikons will get the new screen and font rendering, unless they start to put 4 inch screens on the cameras - lol

I wish the d7100 was a bigger body, it just feels horrible to hold even with the grip.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,451
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
They are the same size at 3.2 inches and I believe the d7100 adds an extra white pixel to the RGB array which is how they get 1.2m dots as opposed to 921k dots from the old screens but the resolution is the same for displaying photos, the difference is the rendering of the text in info mode, they have changed that completely to smooth fonts but who looks at that for long anyway.

Supposed to give extra contrast I think. No doubt all future Nikons will get the new screen and font rendering, unless they start to put 4 inch screens on the cameras - lol

I wish the d7100 was a bigger body, it just feels horrible to hold even with the grip.
I sit corrected then:smile:

it's not so bad gripped
 
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
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom