Solid replacement for D300?

[Carole]

Wow. This cross-analysis is awesome. I probably will end up just going with the 7100, just simply because of the monetary difference.

But for sports(my niche), how is it?

I went whale watching today with my D7100 and it blew me away. I didn't miss a shot! Everyone else on the boat was waiting for their cameras to write to the card, and in the meantime I got another 20 shots. I shot 1229 photos today I'm transferring them to the computer now, but just looking at them through the LCD screen, the D7100 is amazing!!!

Carole

 

[Retief]

Wow. This cross-analysis is awesome. I probably will end up just going with the 7100, just simply because of the monetary difference.

But for sports(my niche), how is it?

Another option, and you get a "bonus" for this as well. Use a shorter lens and shoot in 1.3 crop mode. Yields a 15.4mp file, more fit in the buffer. I would have said it gives a 2x crop factor, but as some Smart-A in another thread said "Almost 2x, more like 1.9", darned math major :biggrin:

The extra bonus is a bit of a boost in FPS as well. And for sports, 12bit lossless compressed should be just find and dandy.

 

[mneary]

Another option, and you get a "bonus" for this as well. Use a shorter lens and shoot in 1.3 crop mode. Yields a 15.4mp file, more fit in the buffer. I would have said it gives a 2x crop factor, but as some Smart-A in another thread said "Almost 2x, more like 1.9", darned math major :biggrin:

The extra bonus is a bit of a boost in FPS as well. And for sports, 12bit lossless compressed should be just find and dandy.

You couldn't have meant me with that comment, right, Bill? :wink:

:biggrin::biggrin:

Mike

 

[Retief]

You couldn't have meant me with that comment, right, Bill? :wink:

:biggrin::biggrin:

Mike

If the foo sh....., oops, the Shoe Fits ...... :wink::wink:

 

[Retief]

If i need to crop more than 20% the subject is too far away and I usually don't take the shot, I try and get closer.

I never bought the d800 for cropping I bought it for the massive resolution and I want to keep the majority of it.

I crop maybe 10% of my wildlife shots and I never crop landscapes other than into a square or wide format.

Based on my shooting needs, the DX format adds nothing for me.

A d800 and 500 with a 1.7x tc gives me all the reach I need in fact I don't use the tc's a great deal anymore.

Boy, I wish we could be so lucky as to always "get closer". A lot of the places we shoot simply do not physically afford us that opportunity. When we can, I do certainly agree with you.

If we meet next year, I want to learn your technique for "getting closer". Some subjects, Grizzly Bears come to mind, I'm not sure I want to :wink:

 

[Retief]

I don't have both cams to perform a test. I will forward this question to Randy and go with his verdict on the subject.

In other news, is a Ferrari better than a Porsche that cost less than half?
:biggrin:

So, the REST of us who have both a D800 and a D7100 are what, chopped liver? Not worth asking?

After that snub I'm not sure I should even bother, but what the heck, I've never been one to not butt into a conversation anyway :wink::wink:

Unlike Randy, I do consider price, and unlike Colin I am not always able to get close enough to my subjects to always fill 80% of the frame. I have been shooting my D800 since last May, so I have more experience with that than with the D7100.

I completely ageee with Randy that if you can fill the frame with both cameras, the D800 wins. Heck, that is 36mp of detail vs. 24mp of detail, so as long as you haven't screwed something up, diffraction and such, it is hard to debate at the physical level. Could you tell if you print both at 4x6 inches? I'm pretty darned sure my eyes couldn't, not sure about yours. How about at 40x60 inches, or 400x600 inches? At some point the resolution wins.

If I have something where I absolutely need 7fps, well, I can either buy 2 D800s and somehow figure out how to trigger them to synchronize, or I can buy a D7100 and shoot in 1.3 crop. So I guess here the D7100 is "better".

So, to directly answer your question, a Ferrari is CLEARLY better if you are filthy rich. A Porche is better if you are just rich .... :wink:

 

[Geof]

But Bill, if one is "filthy" rich then one "needs" both cars.....:smile:

 

[davidnholtjr]

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?

I'm going to be the odd one out here and say get a D3 or D3s for sports.

 

[andreasb]

I was just going to say why not a D700 with a grip? 8 fps and really good lowlight performance....

 

[Retief]

I'm going to be the odd one out here and say get a D3 or D3s for sports.

I was just going to say why not a D700 with a grip? 8 fps and really good lowlight performance....

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The OP specifically states:
"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."

To me this says the OP does not want to lose resolution, which you do going from 12mp on DX to 12mp on FX. Both of these options seem to me like solutions that resolve the ISO issue, but not the OP's other needs. Not sure I see how this becomes a "solid replacement".

Now, let it also be noted that the "FX ISO's" I would amend to say "close to the FX ISO's" with the D7100, the D7100 being a great step up from the D300 in this category.

 

[daveja]

I was just going to say why not a D700 with a grip? 8 fps and really good lowlight performance....

I agree that the D700 is a great compromise camera, I have used it for sports along with a D3 at times for the last 4 years. Other than the reach advantage the D7100 has I would much rather shoot sports with a gripped D700. 8 fps and usable ISO 6400 works in most sports venues you would encounter. Of course it depends on what your shooting and what lenses you would use with it. The 70-200 the Op has in his sig works well for most sports unless you can't get on the field....

 

[trenchmonkey]

"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."

To me this says the OP does not want to lose resolution, which you do going from 12mp on DX to 12mp on FX. Both of these options seem to me like solutions that resolve the ISO issue, but not the OP's other needs. Not sure I see how this becomes a "solid replacement".

Now, let it also be noted that the "FX ISO's" I would amend to say "close to the FX ISO's" with the D7100, the D7100 being a great step up from the D300 in this category

It's not really THAT close. I've been shootin' rodeo with the D7K (D7100's no better @ high ISO's)
for over 2 1/2 yrs. Quite happy with ISO3200 and will push it to 5000 to get the shot. My D3/D700
both handle 6400 and I'll take my D800 to 8000 when needs be. The D300's & (s) served me well,
but noisy blue skies are now a thing of the past. The D7K's made me a bundle...I call THAT solid. :biggrin:

 

[andreasb]

Here is also what the OP said: 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.

From all of the bodies I have owned and or shot with, none of the DX cameras beat the D700/D3 in lowlight and of course not in FPS.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The OP specifically states:
"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."

To me this says the OP does not want to lose resolution, which you do going from 12mp on DX to 12mp on FX. Both of these options seem to me like solutions that resolve the ISO issue, but not the OP's other needs. Not sure I see how this becomes a "solid replacement".

Now, let it also be noted that the "FX ISO's" I would amend to say "close to the FX ISO's" with the D7100, the D7100 being a great step up from the D300 in this category.

 

[colincarter]

Boy, I wish we could be so lucky as to always "get closer". A lot of the places we shoot simply do not physically afford us that opportunity. When we can, I do certainly agree with you.

If we meet next year, I want to learn your technique for "getting closer". Some subjects, Grizzly Bears come to mind, I'm not sure I want to :wink:

I hope we find a grizzly bear wandering around the UK, that would be awesome :biggrin:

When i cannot get as close as i want to, i usually choose not to shoot anymore as i know i won't be happy with the quality when i start to process the shots anyway.

A pop up hide is a great way of allowing you to get closer to your subject and one i use alot.

 

[rotarymunkey]

D7100 is ridiculously better for both ISO and detail compared to a D300. AF system on the two copies I tried was not as good as my D300 though, and blowing 6 of 10 shots or more just didn't help me out at all. I switched to a D600. Not as sharp as the D7100's non-AA sensor, but more detail than the D300, much cleaner at high ISO, and better OOF backgrounds. So far happy, and would suggest anyone switching from a D300 to test drive the D600 first.

Now a D400 would be very appealing to me but not sure I would be happy with the increase in noise at high ISOs again. A faster, more robust D650, with D700 ergonomics and construction and FPS? Sign me up! LOL I'd also like a unicorn and a pot of gold too!

 

[Randy]

D7100 is ridiculously better for both ISO and detail compared to a D300. AF system on the two copies I tried was not as good as my D300 though, and blowing 6 of 10 shots or more just didn't help me out at all. I switched to a D600. Not as sharp as the D7100's non-AA sensor, but more detail than the D300, much cleaner at high ISO, and better OOF backgrounds. So far happy, and would suggest anyone switching from a D300 to test drive the D600 first.

Now a D400 would be very appealing to me but not sure I would be happy with the increase in noise at high ISOs again. A faster, more robust D650, with D700 ergonomics and construction and FPS? Sign me up! LOL I'd also like a unicorn and a pot of gold too!

My D7100's AF is fine although I stopped using it for sports because of the buffer so I can't really compare it to something like my D4.
I used the 120-300 and saw some stolen focus shots on the D7100 but then I had even bigger problems with the 120-300 on my D4 so it goes back and I will assume for now it was not the D7100.....I know the D4 AF's better than any Nikon ever made

 

[colincarter]

D7100 is ridiculously better for both ISO and detail compared to a D300. AF system on the two copies I tried was not as good as my D300 though, and blowing 6 of 10 shots or more just didn't help me out at all. I switched to a D600. Not as sharp as the D7100's non-AA sensor, but more detail than the D300, much cleaner at high ISO, and better OOF backgrounds. So far happy, and would suggest anyone switching from a D300 to test drive the D600 first.

Now a D400 would be very appealing to me but not sure I would be happy with the increase in noise at high ISOs again. A faster, more robust D650, with D700 ergonomics and construction and FPS? Sign me up! LOL I'd also like a unicorn and a pot of gold too!

If there is going to be a d400, I hope Nikon go back to putting a Sony Exmoor sensor in it, The toshiba one in the d7100 does not impress me at all. If you need to lift shadows, they have really bad banding whereas the sony Exmoor sensors are ultra clean and by far and away the best sensors in the market. Canon have nothing that comes close to the Sony sensors.

 

[Nancy Elwood]

If there is going to be a d400, I hope Nikon go back to putting a Sony Exmoor sensor in it, The toshiba one in the d7100 does not impress me at all. If you need to lift shadows, they have really bad banding whereas the sony Exmoor sensors are ultra clean and by far and away the best sensors in the market. Canon have nothing that comes close to the Sony sensors.

Golly Colin, we really disagree with the D7100 sensor!!! I think it is fantastic! And I sure do not want an AA filter ever again.

Nancy

 

[colincarter]

Golly Colin, we really disagree with the D7100 sensor!!! I think it is fantastic! And I sure do not want an AA filter ever again.

Nancy

Hi Nancy, hope you are well.

Randy disagrees with me too, but I can only go on full size raw samples I've seen. A few people at my camera club have got them now and their results are less than encouraging. Like I say it's the banding in the shadows that most upsets me. A 24 mpixel d400 with a sony sensor and no aa filter would be great, although good post process sharpening technique can match what a sensor with no aa filter can achieve so im not so bothered if cameras do or don't have aa filters.

I would still choose another d800 instead of a d800e if I had to, the d800e files show artefacts very quickly if subjected to any amount of additional sharpening.

 

[Carole]

I don't know why so many are complaining about the D7100. When I went out whale watching two weeks ago, and came home and didn't have to do much of anything with the photos except crop and straighten. And that was with photos taken from a moving boat that was swaying back and forth. I LOVE my D7100.

Carole