Currently I am shooting all my pictures with a first generation D300- not the 300s. What will the D7100 do that justifies my changing .
I have the money for the upgrade-if that is what it is or should I spend or save the money for better lenses? I have a 28-200 Nikon, a 80-400 first gen Nikon.
What do you photo? I'm thinking lenses. As for the camera, I had a D300 and now have D7100. D7100: sharper image, much more resolution, will AF in much lower light, video, built in leveler. Main thing is better AF and tons more resolution. D300: faster frame rate, bigger buffer, 10-pin port.
I also had the 80-400mm VR and now 80-400mm AFS. New lens--sharper at 400mm, better VR nearly instant focus. Depends on what you photo. D7100 + 80-400mm AFS is a killer combo for wildlife.
D7100 has massively better IQ. It's FAR faster and has a much deeper buffer in 14bit mode (the D300 is severely limited if shooting 14bit RAW's). It adds a 1.3x HSC mode (2x effective crop from FX) that still delivers better IQ than the D300. It's smaller & lighter and has better battery life on the standard battery. It supports the wifi and GPS dongles.
The D300 is better built & sealed, has a few extra controls, a 10 pin port and with the grip can use the D2/D3 series battery for massive battery life and an additional speed boost. And it has a much deeper buffer in 12 bit RAW mode and is marginally faster (if not using the grip+EN-EL4).
I had both, I preferred the D7100 by a large margin. But I don't need that extra margin of build & speed and do need the better IQ.
That said, I'd strongly recommend replacing your 28-200 with something better before you look at other bodies. An old 18-70DX can be had dirt cheap (Payed $80 for my last one, twice that is more typical) and is a great performer even on the D7100's 24MP AA-less sensor.
The D7100 is incredibly good value for money. The files are nearly D800 quality, and the larger buffer comes in handy for wildlife. AF is as good as it gets. Where the D300 falls apart around ISO 800 the D7100 does all right up to ISO 1600.
Don't mistake better built for better sealed. Nikon claimed the sealing on the D7100 was equivalent to the D800.
I agree, though, that the OP needs to be more specific on what he/she needs or wants. Is the D300 falling down in any way? Is there something specific you're hoping to gain from the upgrade? Are you happy with your current lenses?
The D7100 was a heck of an upgrade from my D300 in virtually every meaningful way. There are a couple things I wish had carried over, but nothing that would make me want to switch back.
The images up to ISO 3200 are rather usable with decent noise reduction. ISO 1600 is absolutely fine so long as you aren't shooting in an absolute dark cave.
It's really like a DX version of the D700 in many ways since the images are very similar between the two when you down sample the images.
I would be thinking even the D3300 at this point would be better in terms of image quality.
The only thing you lose is the feel of a pro camera.
I'd upgrade those lenses before I upgraded bodies. The 28-200 and the old 80-400 aren't really up to snuff for a 24mp DX sensor, so you won't really see as much of that resolution increase from a new sensor. You'll get better dynamic range and better high iso performance, but you'll give up some speed and build quality. I'd bet you'd be happier with the IQ from a 300/4 on your D300 than that 80-400 on a D7100. Something worth considering, anyway.
I guess I'll be the one voice in the wilderness on this subject. I own a D700 and D300; I bought the D7100 to replace the D300 (I like the DX format for wildlife) as I was tired of waiting for the D400.
The D7100 is a nice little camera, but it is not massively better than the D300. I wish I had not bought into all the hype on this camera. In fact, my opinion is the only advantages it offers that matter are megapixels and video...and I don't shoot video. ever.
The auto-focus is not faster than my D300, and is noticeably slower on some moving objects (soccer, other sports, etc). It is a bit better on high ISO, but nothing that I can't fix in post on the D300. The body is small, and the controls and buttons just different enough to be frustrating. When locked onto my RRS ballhead, I can actually see the plastic body flex when a 24-70 f2.8 Lens is attached, let alone something larger (and heavier). The buffer is so small that it seems an intentional punishment by Nikon inflicted on its customers.
Everyone says that the IQ is so awesome, but I just don't see it. Good, but not awesome. Maybe if you are printing billboards the extra MP will help. But at normal sizes, and certainly when viewed on a monitor, I just don't see it.
I have tried to like the D7100 and I am still getting to know it, but truth be known - I wish I had saved my money.
I ran across a stellar deal on a D700, so I decided to pull the trigger and sold my D7000 to recoup some funds... After switching to the "Pro" body ergonomics, It would be very hard for me to justify going back to the "consumer" layout.
I have since purchased a D300 to compliment it, and could not be happier! (In fact, I have a second one on the way, as an attribute to that!!!)
That being said, I will be waiting to hear what the D7200 brings to the table, and MAY consider it after some real world results. But, In the meantime... It will be my glass that gets the upgrades, not the camera body.
frdjohns wrote:
....I have tried to like the D7100 and I am still getting to know it, but truth be known - I wish I had saved my money.
I'm kind of in the same boat. I can certainly see why the BIF crowd likes the D7100, those files stand up to moderate crops better than the D300 files and any improvement in higher ISO values is always welcome to the golden hour shooters. I'm not a landscape guy but I imagine the D7100 is the cream of the crop in DX land for this discipline.
I'd wager that for most photographers the D7100 is indeed the better machine but there is definitely a core of users whom find the D300/s the best tool for their particular scenarios.
I've been shooting dog action with the D7100 since August now and I think I've learned the camera fairly well. And my conclusion is I'd rather shoot this kind of work with a D300/s for a variety of reasons all of which have been bandied about endlessly on the 'net thus I'll spare everyone further comment ;-)
No flies on the D7100, I just prefer the D300 series.
Christian H wrote:
The D7100 is incredibly good value for money. The files are nearly D800 quality, and the larger buffer comes in handy for wildlife. AF is as good as it gets. Where the D300 falls apart around ISO 800 the D7100 does all right up to ISO 1600.
What larger buffer?? I have the D7100 and the D300 and one of the complaints is the D7100 just doesn't have a large enough buffer and I would have to agree. When I first got the camera and shooting RAW the buffer filled way too quickly. I was able to somewhat fix the problem by buying faster cards but it really needs a larger buffer especially for those of us that shoot wildlife.
SSISteve wrote:
What larger buffer?? I have the D7100 and the D300 and one of the complaints is the D7100 just doesn't have a large enough buffer and I would have to agree. When I first got the camera and shooting RAW the buffer filled way too quickly. I was able to somewhat fix the problem by buying faster cards but it really needs a larger buffer especially for those of us that shoot wildlife.
The usual 12-bit compressed crop mode with a fast card will more than double the full quality/res buffer, and the buffer will flush almost instantly once you let off. Still better IQ/res than the D300/s.
SSISteve wrote:
What larger buffer?? I have the D7100 and the D300 and one of the complaints is the D7100 just doesn't have a large enough buffer and I would have to agree. When I first got the camera and shooting RAW the buffer filled way too quickly. I was able to somewhat fix the problem by buying faster cards but it really needs a larger buffer especially for those of us that shoot wildlife.
If you're in 12bit compressed mode the D300 has about a 50% deeper buffer, depending on exact settings (it's more like 25% if the D7100 is in 1.3x crop mode).
If you're in 14bit lossless, the D7100's buffer is effectively unlimited compared to the D300's smallish buffer (D7100 is 2.9fps when the buffer is full in 14bit lossless, D300 is 2.5fps until the buffer fills)
frdjohns wrote:
I guess I'll be the one voice in the wilderness on this subject. I own a D700 and D300; I bought the D7100 to replace the D300 (I like the DX format for wildlife) as I was tired of waiting for the D400.
The D7100 is a nice little camera, but it is not massively better than the D300. I wish I had not bought into all the hype on this camera. In fact, my opinion is the only advantages it offers that matter are megapixels and video...and I don't shoot video. ever.
The auto-focus is not faster than my D300, and is noticeably slower on some moving objects (soccer, other sports, etc). It is a bit better on high ISO, but nothing that I can't fix in post on the D300. The body is small, and the controls and buttons just different enough to be frustrating. When locked onto my RRS ballhead, I can actually see the plastic body flex when a 24-70 f2.8 Lens is attached, let alone something larger (and heavier). The buffer is so small that it seems an intentional punishment by Nikon inflicted on its customers.
Everyone says that the IQ is so awesome, but I just don't see it. Good, but not awesome. Maybe if you are printing billboards the extra MP will help. But at normal sizes, and certainly when viewed on a monitor, I just don't see it.
I have tried to like the D7100 and I am still getting to know it, but truth be known - I wish I had saved my money....Show more →
Unfortunetly, I had the same letdown with the D7100.
The "new DX flagship" is not the replacement for the D300.
Wait for Summer!
Hopefully they will recesitate the D300 body, the handling and controls are much better than the D7100.
If the D400 never comes the D7200 will.
With a Expeed 4 processor and other tweaks it will be twice as good in low light. (The D5300 already is) and there should be other improvements too.
frdjohns wrote:
Everyone says that the IQ is so awesome, but I just don't see it. Good, but not awesome. Maybe if you are printing billboards the extra MP will help. But at normal sizes, and certainly when viewed on a monitor, I just don't see it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but, I find it hard to believe one can't see the night and day difference in IQ between the D7100 and D300/s... I preferred the handling of my D300s but that wasn't enough for me to pick it up once starting the day I got a D7100. The D300 is certainly capable of stunning quality in the right conditions, but the D7100 (IQ wise) is on another level.... just IMO.
I have had D300s D90 D7000 D7100 Each one was better then the next.
Sick of D300 owners who still think it is better,They never post images or put up there web pages.Just give opinionated reasons why it is still better.In the end to me it is about the end image.I tought myself to use a D90 to take a better shot then The D300s.And again with d7000..and so on.Please post up your best shots with the D300 or D300s.....Bueller...Bueller...
I somehow remember the same heated debates when the D7000/D300 topic was opened. Tells you how timeless the D300 was and still is. However, emotional talk aside, the D7100 has significant advantages that puts it in another league, especially that these advantages are what counts the most with their target audiences such as ISO performance and resolution.
Arguing that the D300 is better than the D7100 is similar to that of the D700 & D600, except the D7100 is not crippled like the D600
