D300s or D7000... or D400? D300s Wins

Hi Everyone,

Last month I took a tumble and destroyed my D80 (No I didn't break it on purpose so I could upgrade ). Since then, I have been frantically waiting for Nikon to release the replacement for the D300s(D400?). The Aug. 24th announcement was Coolpix only. There is supposed to be another announcement on Sept 21st, but most feel it will be Nikon's new mirrorless line - still no DSLR's. If that's the case, what do I do?

I want to upgrade, but I still want a DX body for the crop factor. That leaves me with the much older D300/D300s, or the much newer (but more lateral move) of the D7000. Here's how I see them stacking up:

D7000 - Newer technology, better high ISO performance, more mp
D300/D300s - Better build quality, larger buffer, slight edge in frame rate (8 w/grip vs. 6).

For me, burst rate and buffering are key features for birds in flight and wildlife. I've read that the D7000 can only handle 8-10 frames (raw) before bogging down and that concerns me. The D300s is better in that regard, but is quite expensive for something that is due to be replaced (and will drop in value the moment the D400 comes out). High ISO performance is also important for shooting wildlife in low light. I guess for me, the D400 should have the best of both, but unless its released soon I will have to buy one of the above. So which is it? Any advice or options I haven't considered.

Thanks,
Jeff

I won't comment on the possibility of a D400 because I know nothing about it - but what I do know about is the D300s and how much I like it. I briefly thought about selling it to buy a D7000 but was talked out of it by a trusted pro photographer who knows his Nikons. I would have been sacrificing build quality and fps among other things.

If I were you I'd try and pick up a used D300s somewhere...

Thanks Luke. That pretty much matches my feelings, but the D300 is a fly in the ointment. It seems to be about $300-$400 cheaper than the D300s (both used) and is therefore a tempting option. Whatever I get will have to last me several years. I can't afford to upgrade every few years.

I purposely bought a mint D300 instead of a D300S as an upgrade from my D200 a few months ago. I had no interest in video with a DSLR, and that's the only major difference between them IMO. The D300 raw files can be read with the last ACR module of PS CS3; to read D300S raw files requires moving to CS4.

I'm very happy with the D300's performance and glad I didn't have to take the hit to get a new version of photoshop (or a new Intel Mac required to run it).

I was struggling with the same dilemma a few months ago but out of desire to upgrade, not born of necessity. I've been shooting a D300 for about three years and love every aspect of the camera except the low ISO performance. When the sunami hit Japan and affected Nikon production I figured it would delay any new camera releases so I went ahead and bought a 7000 body after reading all of the rave reviews. No doubt about it the sensor/processing blows the D300 out of the water. Particularly for anything above ISO 400 noise performance is WAY better than the 300. And I'm talking with in camera NR turned off. Auto WB is better and overall colors are rendered more accurately as well. And the ability to use the innexpensive wireless shutter release is really convenient for tripod shots.

But if you shoot a lot of BIFs or other active wildlife the 10 shot buffer can be a killer. I never realized how frequenly I rattled off more than ten frames in a row. Another negative I've noted with the 7000 is that it doesn't seem to focus as quickly as the 300. When shooting moving subjects I get a lot more OOF frames with the 7000, particularly if the subject is moving rather fast and coming towards the camera. The only data that I can offer is that I still shoot both bodies and on average I get more OOF stuff with the 7000. Then again due to the superior ISO performance I use it exclusively now when in poor lighting so that may have something to do with it. I don't use the video feature at all so can't comment on that.

Regarding the build quality and "feel" of the camera, no doubt the D300 is a bit stouter. But it's not a huge difference. When you're holding the 7000 it still feels like a substantial piece of equipment. I've abused it quite a bit already in a lot of rainy weather and it's taken a few hard knocks as well with no ill effects.

All in all I'd say it depends on your usage. If active subjects are your primary target then the buffer may be a major issue. But other than that I have to say that my experience with the 7000 to-date has been that it out performs the 300 hands down.

I wanted to upgrade my D90 and, without the money for a fx model, I bought a D7000, after reading the tons of positive web's bla-bla about that model (also versus D300)- Besides some AF issues (anyway quickly fixed with AF adjustment), D7000 didn't pass the "eye" test: using identical set-up (above all under daylight conditions) D90 produced better images than D7000 (obviously- less pixels- less resolution, but IMO better colours and dinamic)- So quickly D7000 came back to the store and in return I got the D300s (that has the same sensor of the D90): it costed 250 $ more but the italian Nikon distributor gave me the unexpected present of a free SB900 flash - After one thousand shots I'm very happy about my choice: D300 is surely sturdier, has a better AF system and above all produces better images (in my modest opinion)- If you wait some months, maybe a D400 or Dsomewhatwithlotofpixels will be produced, and you'll be able to get a D300 at a very convenient price- Best regards, Fabio

I have been using a pair of D-300's for several years and wouldn't trade for just about anything.

As an avid bird in motion photographer you can't beat the quick focus. I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with the new version 2.0 TC on one and a more plebian 18-200mm on the other (for closer shots, w< , and general location shots.

I also use a D-700 with (older film lens) 24-85mm f/2.8-4 macro and it is a heavy beast but when you want full frame you can't beat it.

on the D7000, haven't used one but am thinking of trying one out for "touristing" when the wife says no heavy guns, and all I will be shooting are landscapes, and the like in Europe.

Still haven't picked the lens for it.

You are right the improved sensor is intriguing and that is what induced me in that direction.

On the "d-400" I would recommend you read Thom Hogan's blog or website. he is a Nikon expert and writes the definitive eBook on them and others too.

If you want to get an idea of what may be happening, I would read him.

I havne't mentioned D-300s as I don't really need video for nature work (might use for that touristing thing) so no real need to upgrade from wonderful D-300's
.
Good shooting.

I do not think you could go wrong with a D300s or a D7000. One of the things to consider in waiting for next D400 (or whatever it will be) is that sometimes it takes almost a year to get the new camera once it has been announced due to supply and demand.

I have been using a D300 and a D300s for years and they are both excellent cameras. I recently got a D7000 for my birthday (sold the D300) and have been comparing the D7000 with my D300s. I also have found similar results to Dan Roberts post. I mainly photograph birds, wildlife and occasional landscape. I used my Nikkor 300 f4 with the 1.4 TC on the D7000 and did notice it was a little slower to focus but not by much. The buffer issue would definitely be a problem for BIF but I did notice once I went to a better memory card (SanDisk 8GB Extreme Pro SDHC Memory Card with 45 MB/s write speed) that things did speed up considerably. I have got very good images at ISO 1600 and even ISO 2000 under the right shooting conditions with the D7000.

After using both cameras and trying different lens for a month I ended up using this camera and lens combination for me. D300s with my Nikkor 300 f4 and 1.4 TC for birds and wildlife. The D7000 with my Nikkor 70-300 VR for getting low light images or my Nikkor 16-85 VR for landscape images. The D7000 is a very good camera for the price but it does have it's limitations. The D300s is a proven performer. I guess it just depends on what you shot the most. Brad Hill and Tom Hogan both have good reviews of the D7000 that I found very useful and accurate.
Regards,
Jim

Thanks for all the great input. I especially appreciate that you are all user's of one or more of the cameras in question.

Since the D300s is still a current model, there doesn't seem to be many deals on used ones. A used D300 is $300 cheaper than a used D300s or new D7000, so if I found a good deal with a low shutter count, I might pull the trigger. I think the D7000 would be great in low light, but leave me wanting in other areas.

Nick - I have read Thom Hogan's review, which is partly what made me see the D7000 more on the level of the D90, though obviously an upgrade. I will now go look for Brad Hill's review.

I haven't quite made a decision, but I'm getting close...

Once again, major thanks to all who replied. I'm sure the D7000 is a fine camera, but I was convinced that I needed the larger buffer of the D300s. I picked one up used and am very happy with the decision. Last weekend I visited Cape May and there were birds flying everywhere. Hundreds of warblers (19 species) and thousands of hawks, and many bursts of my shutter proved that I made the right decision. I will hopefully be posting some images from this trip soon.

I use a D300s. I absolutely love it.
Amongst my last group, I had a chance to play with a D7000. (10 people and amazingly all the DSLRs were Nikons)
I had not read or heard anything about it before picking it up. I didn't like it at all.
Even from the first handling it did not feel as natural in my hands as the D300s and there were little quirks that irritated me immensely.
Even though we explored every conceivable menu option we could not find a way to stop the flash popping up and firing when it was completely unwanted and unwarranted.
I am sure that the insides of the D7000 are great but I really don't like using it.

And of course there is a recent announcement of the D7100, and continued rumors of a possible future D400 (although that seems a bit less likely now).