The D300s replacement

[stmv]

I had a D300, and really have to echo, that the D700 really seduced me with its images, the D300 was great in bright light, but the D700 just does wonders in low ligt.

I have to say I don't totally agree with the slights to the D7000, I purchased one of those also, and this is a tough camera, magnesium body, weather sealed, etc. I had a strap failure on volcanic rocks, the camera flew and hit the rough rocks, and well, hardly a scratch. So, the D7000 is built on a tough platform. About the only advantage of my D300 over the D7000 is the bracket depth.

What will be the D400,, hard to say, I am hoping for a 24 Meg FX sensor, with the build quality of the D300, could be a very sweet camera.

Have to admit, the D800 is meeting my expectation, and kinda glad to step off the camera upgrade escallator.

 

[Eye-level]

The D7000 clearly has an advantage over the 300 in ISO. Personally I think this may be the 7000's one merit that makes it superior to the 300. The 300 seems to be somehow more "substantial" in feel at least to me. I would be hard pressed to pick between a D7000 and a D300. As a DX backup rig I think I would go with the 300. I'm guessing that one would get a lot more actuations out of the shutter in a D300 than a D7000 so basically you are weighing durability vs ISO performance. But then again you can get a shutter box replaced with a brand new 0 count one for a relatively low amount of money.

Give me the ISO and the robustness in the successor model of the D300 and I might choose it over the 7100 if there ever is one????

 

[Dave_W]

I agree about the durability of the D7000. I was out in the desert not long ago taking night photos with my 14-24mm on my D7000 and both were on a tripod. I went to move my set up to and I totally didn't see a ~1ft drop in the path I was walking and came slamming down to the ground. And because the camera/lens was on the tripod in my hand and it ended up swinging itself down to the ground like a baseball bat, picking up speed as it approached the ground. I laid there for a minute or two making sure my ankle wasn't broken and i didn't even want to look at the camera or my crazy expensive lens that I was sure I busted. I gathered myself to look at the camera/lens expecting the worst and to my surprise there was virtually no signs of impact. The lens had a small scuff on the permanently attached lens shade but nothing else and the camera itself showed nothing other than the wired remote was ripped away from the plug and only wires were sticking out. I couldn't believe my luck. So yes, I can personally attest to the fact the D7000 is a very well built camera capable of taking extreme mistreatment and come out smelling like roses.

 

[Dave_W]

The D7000 clearly has an advantage over the 300 in ISO. Personally I think this may be the 7000's one merit that makes it superior to the 300. The 300 seems to be somehow more "substantial" in feel at least to me. I would be hard pressed to pick between a D7000 and a D300. As a DX backup rig I think I would go with the 300.

Give me the ISO and the robustness in the successor model of the D300 and I might choose it over the 7100 if there ever is one????

Another attribute that puts the D7k over the D300 is the image processor. The D7000 uses the newer EXPEED-2 while the D300 uses the EXPEED-1. These processors really make a difference when it comes to color rendition and dynamic coverage.

 

[Eye-level]

Yes that is where the ISO advantage lurks I think.

 

[Dave_W]

Yes that is where the ISO advantage lurks I think.

Interestingly, DxOMark rates the D7000 significantly higher than the D300s

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

 

[Eye-level]

Yeah but that test doesn't take into account shooting a 1000 snaps a day for extended periods plus it is sort of dogmatic...the only time you will really see a glaring difference is high ISO stuff...that is just my opinion...I am talking real world vs lab stuff in this regard. I truly believe in both the lab and the real world the D7000 will smoke the D300 in the dark with any kind of glass. That is it's main advantage. That being said I still think there is a place for both...high end consumer and semi pro body...one type of shooter needs one another type of shooter needs the other.

My old F2 will outlast all of them as long as film is made and I don't care what anyone says it still makes a mean snap...but it is so obsolete...kind of like comparing a 67 big block Corvette to a 2012 Corvette...wouldn't it be nice to own both?

 

[Rick M]

I think what made the D300 so successful was the same controls as the D3/D700, pro-level magnesium body and weather sealing. The D7000 doesn't cut it for me. For me to stay in DX, I want a DX version of the D800.

The Dx version of the D800 would be about 16mp, hopefully it will be under 20 so diffraction isn't an issue.

 

[Dave_W]

The Dx version of the D800 would be about 16mp, hopefully it will be under 20 so diffraction isn't an issue.

Rick, are you sure diffraction is a function of resolution? I thought it had more to do with focal length vs. aperture, no? Before the D800 was released I remember reading about how the D800 would have diffraction issues but haven't seem to run into it yet.

 

[Rick M]

Rick, are you sure diffraction is a function of resolution? I thought it had more to do with focal length vs. aperture, no? Before the D800 was released I remember reading about how the D800 would have diffraction issues but haven't seem to run into it yet.

Pixel density and aperature are the concerns. The pixel density and crop factor determine at what aperature diffraction becomes an issue. The higher the MP count (in any size sensor), the sooner the onset of diffraction. For example, a 16MP sensor becomes compromised after f7.3, a 24mp Dx sensor becomes compromised after f5.6. Cambridge in color has some great info on this and a diffraction calculator, it's very interesting. See link below


Digital Camera Diffraction – Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast

 

[Rick M]

I've done allot of tests with my D5100, by f9 any increase in Dof is lost to Diffraction. Last weekend compared f7.1, f8 and f9 on the same shots requiring high Dof. The out of focus background elements looked sharper at f7.1 than f9, f8 seemed to be the perfect balance. A 24 mp sensor will be limited to an even lower aperature to maintain resolution, could limit it's landscpe potential (but would be great for most other shooting styles not requiring high DoF). If the next great Dx has the 24MP sensor in it, I may rent a D3200 for a few days just to test the sensor in advance of a (D400?) purchase.

 

[Dave_W]

Pixel density and aperature are the concerns. The pixel density and crop factor determine at what aperature diffraction becomes an issue. The higher the MP count (in any size sensor), the sooner the onset of diffraction. For example, a 16MP sensor becomes compromised after f7.3, a 24mp Dx sensor becomes compromised after f5.6. Cambridge in color has some great info on this and a diffraction calculator, it's very interesting. See link below


Digital Camera Diffraction – Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast

It is interesting, thanks. According to this site the D5100/D7000 have smaller pixels sizes than does the D800. Not by much, mind you, but it does seem reasonable that all three would have very similar diffraction limitations.

 

[Rick M]

It is interesting, thanks. According to this site the D5100/D7000 have smaller pixels sizes than does the D800. Not by much, mind you, but it does seem reasonable that all three would have very similar diffraction limitations.

Yes, the Dx equivalency of a D800 would have 15.72 MP. Nikon may already have the most perfectly balanced Dx sensor.

 

[Marcel]

Pixel density and aperature are the concerns. The pixel density and crop factor determine at what aperature diffraction becomes an issue. The higher the MP count (in any size sensor), the sooner the onset of diffraction. For example, a 16MP sensor becomes compromised after f7.3, a 24mp Dx sensor becomes compromised after f5.6. Cambridge in color has some great info on this and a diffraction calculator, it's very interesting. See link below


Digital Camera Diffraction – Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast

This is why I think the D700 has still a lot of faithful followers. The density is less so it's not affected as much by this phenomena.
I've seen the price of used ones go up lately and they don't stay for sale for a long time. If you ever get a good deal, I'm sure it would make you a very happy man despite the less pixels.

Just my humble opinion. Cause I'm really tempted by the D800, but the file size and the quality of pics that my D700 is giving me are keeping me away for now. Can't promise for how long, but I didn't get it today. I live by this motto: One day at a time...

 

[Dave_W]

This is why I think the D700 has still a lot of faithful followers. The density is less so it's not affected as much by this phenomena.
I've seen the price of used ones go up lately and they don't stay for sale for a long time. If you ever get a good deal, I'm sure it would make you a very happy man despite the less pixels.

Just my humble opinion. Cause I'm really tempted by the D800, but the file size and the quality of pics that my D700 is giving me are keeping me away for now. Can't promise for how long, but I didn't get it today. I live by this motto: One day at a time...

File-size, shmile-size!!! Join the D800 party....you're not chicken, are you? All the cool kids are doing it.

 

[Marcel]

File-size, shmile-size!!! Join the D800 party....you're not chicken, are you? All the cool kids are doing it.

Yeah, chicken right on! Thing is I already have 3 bodies: D90,7000&700, many lenses DX and FX for most of them and I don't see what pictures I could do with a D800 that I can't with my present cameras.
As far as my consciousness reasoning, I don't need another better camera. But, as you say, "All the cool kids have one". This got me in trouble in my youth so I'm trying not to respond to that stimulus.
My photo store has 4 in stock so I can just go out there and get one. I can afford it and sometimes say to myself that I should reward myself with one… But what pictures can't I take with my present setup? This is what is keeping me away from the store.

Future will tell…

 

[evan]

upgrading from one generation of dslr to the next just to keep up with the "cool kids" is a mugs game. if you skip a generation it is likely that you will see more benefits. i went from the d100 to the d90, skipping a generation and it made a big difference. then i went from the d90 to the d7000. one generation to the next, less of a difference, although still noticeably better. plus,there is the old adage, "if its in stock, its obsolete" to think of. meaning no matter what you get, sooner rather than later, it will no longer be the "cool kids" item of choice.

 

[Eye-level]

I think of the D700 just like I think of the F2...with the D700 it is the last great "pure" DSLR (a F2 in digital form!) The F2 was the last great film camera IMO. The D3000 D3100 D3200 D5000 D5100 D7000 those cameras are like digital FE and FM. Greatness in a smaller package)

Now if the D600 has no video (which I seriously doubt) I may pick one of those up instead of the D700.

I've always been to cool for school despite everything else...LOL

 

[Billy Y.]

My photo store has 4 in stock so I can just go out there and get one. I can afford it and sometimes say to myself that I should reward myself with one… But what pictures can't I take with my present setup? This is what is keeping me away from the store.

Future will tell…

Ah, but after you sell the 700 to me you will be back to 3 bodies. I don't see see the issue...

 

[T.Behuniak]

I don't understand why they would want to replace the D300's in the first place, they have had such good feedback and are both sooooo successful, I know; a business is a business and most people are going to want the newer technology, but can't they just do that in a non-replacement, just a new camera. Keep the D7000 and the D300's separate, and keep the D300's the top of the DX line for a while and just come out with lower-end FX models, that's what I believe Nikon should do.