Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikonites
New Member Introductions
Hoping for my first Nikon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Retro" data-source="post: 417677" data-attributes="member: 37517"><p>I've compared the D7100 and D300s on Nikon's site. The D7100 is $1,264 with an 18mm - 140mm Nikkor, and a new D300s is $1,500, minimum.</p><p></p><p>The only major differences I could see are 24MP and 12MP, respectively, and the D300s has the CF and SD slots, where the D7100 has two SD slots.</p><p></p><p>I figure Nikon would not be going this way with memory if you guys didn't like it. They wouldn't be that stupid, would they? I don't know enough about photography to say CF is better. I do know enough about memory to insist on two slots, and to record to both, either for the same exposures, or for different locations or whatever. Flash memory dies occasionally. You need backups.</p><p></p><p>I hate to say this, because I would love a D750, but I think the D7100 is the right body for me. It's the right price, and I can't see myself frustrated by its limitations in the next few years. I can reasonably expect that the money will be there for a better one when that time comes, and I won't regret my time with the D7100. I think there's enough headroom there.</p><p></p><p>Considering that the price for a good used D300s is about $750+, the D7100 is a better choice.</p><p></p><p>There isn't always an answer to this, but I would like to know, what is the direct descendant of the D300?</p><p></p><p>Before digital, my choice Nikon was an F90. I always tend to choose the low end pro model as my preference. I'm not sure what the 'F90' is in today's digital line up. But like I said, these linear progressions are not always followed by manufacturers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Retro, post: 417677, member: 37517"] I've compared the D7100 and D300s on Nikon's site. The D7100 is $1,264 with an 18mm - 140mm Nikkor, and a new D300s is $1,500, minimum. The only major differences I could see are 24MP and 12MP, respectively, and the D300s has the CF and SD slots, where the D7100 has two SD slots. I figure Nikon would not be going this way with memory if you guys didn't like it. They wouldn't be that stupid, would they? I don't know enough about photography to say CF is better. I do know enough about memory to insist on two slots, and to record to both, either for the same exposures, or for different locations or whatever. Flash memory dies occasionally. You need backups. I hate to say this, because I would love a D750, but I think the D7100 is the right body for me. It's the right price, and I can't see myself frustrated by its limitations in the next few years. I can reasonably expect that the money will be there for a better one when that time comes, and I won't regret my time with the D7100. I think there's enough headroom there. Considering that the price for a good used D300s is about $750+, the D7100 is a better choice. There isn't always an answer to this, but I would like to know, what is the direct descendant of the D300? Before digital, my choice Nikon was an F90. I always tend to choose the low end pro model as my preference. I'm not sure what the 'F90' is in today's digital line up. But like I said, these linear progressions are not always followed by manufacturers. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikonites
New Member Introductions
Hoping for my first Nikon
Top
