D7000 vs D300S

[jdeg]

I would like to move on from my D5000 in the near future. It seems that Nikon isn't going to make this decision easy.

So the D7000 has the following new features:

• New EXPEED 2 CMOS sensor - 16.2mp
• ISO 100-6400
• Highest movie resolution of 1920x1080p @ 24fps w/ autofocus
• 39AF points
• 2 SD card slots (SDXC supported)
• 6fps continuous shooting
• Light @ 780 grams (1.7lbs)
• Smaller
• Street Price (body only): $1200

In comparison the D300s has:

• 12.3mp CMOS sensor
• ISO 200-3200
• Highest movie resolution of 1280x720p @ 24fps
• 51AF points
• 1 SD & 1 CF card slots
• 7fps continuous shooting max
• 918 grams (2.2lbs)
• Larger
• Street price (body only): $1500

So clearly the D7000 has some better features for the price. Maybe the D300s price will drop? What do you think?

 

[goz63]

I don't mean to be picky here but the new D7000 keeps getting compared to the D300S. It is not a replacement for the D300S. There may very well be a replacement for the D300 soon. The D7000 is an upgrade for the D90 and it has some definite advantages over the D90. The increased auto focus points, auto focus in 1080p HD video, mag alloy case, higher fps and twin SDHC card slots are all nice improvements to the D90. The higher megapixel is a debatable subject on cost to benefit ration IMO.

 

[Oz1]

The d7000 seems to be getting some good reviews even on the image quality. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[LensWork]

I don't mean to be picky here but the new D7000 keeps getting compared to the D300S. It is not a replacement for the D300S.

No, the D7000 is NOT a replacement for the D300S, but it is certainly worthy of being compared to the D300S. There was a pretty clear distinction between the D90 & the D300S. Now, with the D7000, that line has been blurred.

 

[Mark E]

Seems more an upgrade to the D5000. For me I will stay with the D300S. Love mine.

 

[jdeg]

No, the D7000 is NOT a replacement for the D300S, but it is certainly worthy of being compared to the D300S. There was a pretty clear distinction between the D90 & the D300S. Now, with the D7000, that line has been blurred.

Right! So I guess when the D300S replacement is released it will be more comparable to the D700 - D700 replacement will be more comparable to the D3s, etc.

Now, unless you want to save money, the D90 wouldn't be a consideration when buying the D7000 or D300S. It's more like deciding between the D700 and D3, or D3100 and D5000. Too many model numbers

 

[jdeg]

Seems more an upgrade to the D5000. For me I will stay with the D300S. Love mine.

Just like the D5000 was slightly less than the D90, I think the D7000 is slightly less than the D300S. Both sets of cameras have very comparable features. The difference is the D90 will not be made anymore.

 

[itsok2be]

I can get a new d300s for the same ($1000 - 1200) or less than a d7000 (when they are out) so the question is, which shall I get? The fact that the d7000 was intended to be a replacement for the d90 seems immaterial. My current plan is to wait for the d7000 to get some real world experience. At a minimum I would expect it to cause the price on the d300s to drop further. I hate waiting so I would love it if someone could talk me into getting the d300s.

 

[Mark E]

I put my money on the D300S. Have had several Nikon cameras over the years, so really was not a learning curve for me on the D300S. Love it so far. I would recommend it to anyone.

 

[LensWork]

If you can get a new, with USA warranty, D300S for $1000-$1200, I would go for it. BUT, I would be skeptical. Quite often when a company advertises products for substantially less than well-known stores like B&H, or Adorama for example, there are caveats. Often when these lesser known companies advertise "body only", that's exactly what you get, the camera body only. All of the manufacturer included accessories like the battery, charger, strap, etc. have been stripped out. The sales rep will then try to sell you the accessories separately, which after adding back these items the total price is more than what more reputable stores sell the complete camera for.

 

[Mark E]

Agree, LensWork. I paid about $2200 for my D300S with the 18x200 lens. Still say it is worth the difference. I think he was meaning $1000-1200 more than the D7000. At least that is the way I took it.

 

[CatsPaw]

Hi, I am looking for a camera too. It seems for computers prices go down and compatibility and development processes increase. So while the new d7000 doesn't replace the d300s it has most of the specs. If I recall correctly the s was not a big leap but more of an upgrade like a computer service pack for the 300. I'd expect Nikon to replace it within the year. The 7000 is packed with a bunch although for me it's pricey. I like the improved AF system numbers but I'd prefer to see results. Some systems like to use lots of squares in the screen to prove their point and others make claims their zones are good if not better. But I do believe when u get to this level of camera you've got yourself a pretty reliable option. As many pro columns write like Moore's Law in 18 months this fantastic camera will look outdated. But it won't be. I'm sure we all know many photographers who have cameras from several generations ago which still take remarkable pictures.
One thing I like about the 7* is the AF in movie mode though I haven't used it. I don't know enough about movies to say why, but I've read indie photographers prefer manual. Perhaps there's more license for creativity. Hope that helps a bit. I'd go for the new one for no reason other than price. Off hand the only thing it's missing are a few AF points and that's not a deal breaker for me.

 

[fotojack]

I personally don't understand why anyone would want a movie function in a DSLR still picture camera. Doesn't make sense to me. You want to take movies....buy a movie camera! This feature just takes up space that could have been used to improve upon still camera functions. I don't know, maybe I'm getting too old, or I'm just old fashioned, but adding a feature just to make market sales kind of cheapens it in my view. And why on earth would they stop making perfectly good cameras like the D90, or the D200, or even the D40? They all work exceptionally well for what they do. Imagine if Ford or GM stopped making midsize cars and just made Cadillacs and Lincolns....where would we be?
OK......I'll stop ranting now. It just gets my hackles up, that's all.

 

[six2one]

I personally don't understand why anyone would want a movie function in a DSLR still picture camera. Doesn't make sense to me. You want to take movies....buy a movie camera! This feature just takes up space that could have been used to improve upon still camera functions. I don't know, maybe I'm getting too old, or I'm just old fashioned, but adding a feature just to make market sales kind of cheapens it in my view. And why on earth would they stop making perfectly good cameras like the D90, or the D200, or even the D40? They all work exceptionally well for what they do. Imagine if Ford or GM stopped making midsize cars and just made Cadillacs and Lincolns....where would we be?
OK......I'll stop ranting now. It just gets my hackles up, that's all.

I thought the same thing, while I don't take alot of video, interchangeable high quality lenses are pretty amazing. You can't do that on a video camera for any reasonable price.

 

[goz63]

I have to agree. I didn't buy my DSLR to shoot movies. I suppose with the new D3100 and the D7000 with the ability to auto focus while taking movies it would allow the camera to be used effectively as a video camera along with the high quality lenses. Having said all that, if I wanted to shoot video, i would get a video camera. It is an interesting feature that I MIGHT use in the future on a limited basis. I have not touched it as of yet and don't feel like I have missed out on anything.

 

[Mark E]

I too did not purchase my DSLR because it can take film strips. (Movies) I have taken a few film strips with my D5000 and My D300S, but only to see how to acomplish it and how well it would work. Ability to take movies was not in my wish list when I purchased the cameras.

 

[wbmorrison]

I currently have a D300 (no 's'). I'm strongly leaning toward the D700 because of it's improved low-light performance. But the D7000 popped up and now I'm uncertain. I've loved the 51 point AF so dropping to 39 seems like a loss, though practically I'm not sure how much of a loss it is. Any opinions out there?

 

[Mark E]

If film strips and money are not an issue, I would pick the D700 any day. I have the D300S and when finances permit, I will probally purchase the D700. Already have 2 D lenses from previous film cameras.

 

[curlytone]

Agree, LensWork. I paid about $2200 for my D300S with the 18x200 lens. Still say it is worth the difference. I think he was meaning $1000-1200 more than the D7000. At least that is the way I took it.

Current retail on a D300s body is around $1450, refurbs and open box new can be found for $1350, gently used even less. The retail on the D7000 is $1200. So there isn't a huge price difference at this point ($250 at full retail). Many suspect that the D300s will drop in price soon as the D7000 is very close in specs and better in some cases (HD video, MP) and is less expensive. This is also fueling speculation that the D300s will be replaced, some speculating early next year (D400?), because is seems unwise to have to cameras so close in both price and specs. You also said that the D7000 seems more like a D5000 replacement, which is not even close to true. The D7000 falls between the D90 and D300s in the lineup, I would say closer to the D300s. It has most if not all of the features of a D300s at a lower price. Probably the only things that the D300s has that are supperior is faster FPS when each has a grip and it has a larger body (the size and weight might be a pro for some, a con for others), the larger body means that there is likely a larger/faster AF motor (just speculation), and more AF sensors (51 vs 39). They both have weather sealed magnisium alloy bodies.

 

[jdeg]

If you can get a new, with USA warranty, D300S for $1000-$1200, I would go for it. BUT, I would be skeptical. Quite often when a company advertises products for substantially less than well-known stores like B&H, or Adorama for example, there are caveats. Often when these lesser known companies advertise "body only", that's exactly what you get, the camera body only. All of the manufacturer included accessories like the battery, charger, strap, etc. have been stripped out. The sales rep will then try to sell you the accessories separately, which after adding back these items the total price is more than what more reputable stores sell the complete camera for.

Good advice LensWork