From D200 to... D300 ? / D7000 ?

frisian

frisian

Suspended / Banned
Messages
86
Edit My Images
No
My D200 is great in all respects apart from its higher ISO performance -

Will I see a noticeable improvement from the D300 ?

I have read many good things about the D7000 but I'm not 100% sold on the ergonomics of this camera - hence my interest in the D300.
 
I am in the same kind of boat as have a borrowed D200.

Don't discount the D7000 before you have had one in your hands. I was expecting it to be alot different feel and size to the D200, but it's only just a bit smaller to hold and great it has both the front and rear wheels to change settings.

Have you thought about the 300s?
 
Reidy36 said:
I am in the same kind of boat as have a borrowed D200.

Don't discount the D7000 before you have had one in your hands. I was expecting it to be alot different feel and size to the D200, but it's only just a bit smaller to hold and great it has both the front and rear wheels to change settings.

Have you thought about the 300s?
Click to expand...

I have held a D7000 - maybe I'm just too used to the ease with which the important (to me) controls can be adjusted on the D200!

Re: the D300s - IIRC it only really offers video, as an extra over the D300, which I'm not remotely interested in
 
get D300 instead of D300s unless you want video (is sucks anyway) and the dual card slot.

Used D300 is like £450-500 which is dirt cheap and i still use it as my main camera instead of the D7000. D7000 have better high iso like usable range up to 6400 which i rarely shoot but it gets the job done where as the D300 shoot up to 3200. If you use high iso anyway then D300 is a good buy because the size, handling and control is like you d200.

D7000 offer better video compare to D300s.

Your call at the end of the day.
 
I've recently gone from D200 to D7000 mainly because of the ISO. The only thing that bugs me is that my specs get in the way for back button focussing, it's just that little bit smaller. It certainly doesn't feel like the 'toy' some had described it as.
 
ecniv said:
d700 if you are thinking of spending a d7k amount


d300/s is pretty darn good though.
d7k is probably lighter.
d700 is full frame... depends on your lenses
Click to expand...

D700 is tempting but opens up big spends on glass to get the best from it.

My two main lenses are the 16-85mm and 70-300mm.

Not bothered about the weight of the camera - the D200 is heavy enough!


I am just curious as to whether the D300 (s) is much more noisy than the D7000. Not so much at stupidly high ISO - more like the 800 to 1000 area.
 
badboy1984 said:
get D300 instead of D300s unless you want video (is sucks anyway) and the dual card slot.

Used D300 is like £450-500 which is dirt cheap and i still use it as my main camera instead of the D7000. D7000 have better high iso like usable range up to 6400 which i rarely shoot but it gets the job done where as the D300 shoot up to 3200. If you use high iso anyway then D300 is a good buy because the size, handling and control is like you d200.

D7000 offer better video compare to D300s.

Your call at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

How do your two compare at around ISO800 which is where i find myself with the D200 frequently!
 
not much different in ISO800 for both camera but i guess if you zoom right in and pixel peep then yeah you may see a little bit of different in term of noise.

iso on D300 is absolute nothing to worry about.
 
There is a thread on here called nikon v canon or the other way round. On one of the posts there is a link to where you can list 2 cameras and then check the images at set iso.
I have checked the 300s and 7000 (they didn't have standard 300, but meant to be the same a 300s anyway). Only started to tell the difference when it went to iso 6400, 300s was a little worse.
 
Reidy36 said:
There is a thread on here called nikon v canon or the other way round. On one of the posts there is a link to where you can list 2 cameras and then check the images at set iso.
I have checked the 300s and 7000 (they didn't have standard 300, but meant to be the same a 300s anyway). Only started to tell the difference when it went to iso 6400, 300s was a little worse.
Click to expand...

That link is not really all that useful as the lenses are different, so not really a comparison.
 
I'm leaning towards the D300 at the moment - some great bargains to be had, it seems.
 
I managed to borrow a D7000 from a work mate this evening, on the promise that he got it back first thing in the morning.

So what did i notice different over the D200.

Shutter noise: compared to the D200 it sounds so much quieter.

FPS: the D7000 is only 6fps (not sure if grip extends that) but i was on CH and on numerous occasions i had fired off 2-3 images in one go, may not be much faster but certainly feels it.

Focusing: Some say that the main issue is that it's slower than the D300/s, it may be, but i found it fast (maybe due to D200), was nice to see the little boxes highlight where the focusing point actually was.

Battery: Praise be to Allah. I shot 71 images this evening, with the D200 with a fresh battery, i would have started to be worried, and looking at the meter level wondering when it was going to stop, the battery meter on the D7000 never moved (well impressed).

Image quality: As CS3 doesn't deal with the D7000 i am waiting for a genius to help me, i have the camera raw update/plug in, but a pc moron and know i'm doing something wrong. Images on the back screen look alot sharper and clearer (will post up when got it sorted). Raw files on D200 average 15.5MB, D7000 19.5MB.

Size: The D7000 is a little smaller than the D200 (so will be D300 also, but we knew that). Camera body fitted in my hand well (my glove size is 10 if that helps).

Buttons: A few are in different places, but the essential thumb/finger wheels are still in the same place, ISO has moved, but sure with a bit of practice it will become 2nd nature.

Overall: I borrowed the D7000 to either discount it, or add it to the list of possibles. I don't want to give the camera back. It would have been nice to have a D300/s to play with to do a comparison, but unfortunately not that lucky. Both cameras have their advantages, i primarily will be outside and animals feature so need the fast focusing, but having had an hour, the D7000 is starting to sway me.
 
Hi,

Just to mention that the fps depends on the settings you take... ie I shoot raw n jpg basic and get around 3fps.... but change to fine jpg I get 8fps...

Newer models are quieter...
Battery life is very long on d300... probably 1000 shots ish before a recharge
 
I did the jump from the D200 to the D300 and yes it is well worth it. The first thing you would notice is battery life, so much more than the D200, again pictures are so much better, colour wise just being one of them.
There are many links on the net for comparison checks so well worth checking out.

Realspeed
 
Thanks for the continued info people -

I only shoot raw so not worried about jpgs or their appearence on the LCD -

My major interest is whether the D300 is less noisy than the D200 at around 800 ISO or so....

I think I'll go and "handle" a D7000 again this afternoon
 
Last edited:
iso 800 on a d300 is not a problem. The camera can shoot up to 3200. D7000 iso on 800 is like nothing since it can shoot up to 6400.

I always bump up to 800-1000 easily during low light shooting and not a problem with noise.
 
I couldnt get on with the D7000 grip - not deep enough for me. I imagine there will be a replacement soon (ish).
 
I've come from a D40 to a D7000 to a D300s.

Sold the D7000 as i had some fucusing issues which I couldnt seem sort out. I don't tend to shoot much above iso 800 and have to say that there isn't much between the D7000 and D300s at that level.

I do however prefer the D300s over the D7000. It seems to fit better in my hand, focus's a little quicker, and I get more keepers, and I seem to be doing a lot less post processing in photoshop ( I shoot in RAW). In all I'm happy with making the change. The guy that bought my D7000 is delighted with the camera, so each to their own.
 
I went to "handle" a D7000 today...

Really impressed with the apparent high ISO performance

Not impressed with the physical size of it --- it's tiny!
 
For the D600 you really want to be using FX pro glass. It's more than a mere step up to an FX body. Go for the D7000 and get a cracking lens for it.
 
D600 concept is good because is a consumer body with FX sensor i believe? The photo looks like D7000 body size and layout but FX instead.

I would still prefer a D700 since i don't need that 24 mega pixel and video feature.
 
Thanks guys-

D600 is out of my league at the moment -

If I was going Full frame then it would be a second hand D700-

I need FX glass first though..


Either way... a tidy D300 came my way for a good price -

D7000 - nice features but that camera body is too small for me -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top