If you're looking for a cheap DX body with nearly the D800's IQ - and with higher fps and bigger buffer than the D300 - the D7100 is a no-brainer. It just works. As with the D800, extremely annoying shit like blown highlights, noise, and having to worry about exposure have been consigned to the dustbin of photographic history. The 14-bit files will handle just about anything natural light can throw at them.
Doug Maclean wrote:
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...
Be sick then, pal. Its not all about just image quality. And there's been plenty of top shelf D300 images posted for your illness but its a dated machine now thus its web presence has decreased.
I don't think anybody is saying the D300 is better than the D7100 in terms of image quality but there's a whole lot more to the shooting experience than that for some of us.
I use both cameras and I've posted plenty of images from each. My galleries have always been available with numerous D300 images. I'm not sure where you get this "never post images" or "put up their web pages" crap.
The fact that there is still an active cadre of D300 users is a testament to the incredible versatility and usability of the series. The D7100 surpasses it in many ways but not all and those areas where it does not are areas rather important to some of us.
I hope you get feeling better soon. It must be rather sad feeling sick of a particular genre of your fellow photographers.
Oh. hit a nerve..so sorry.Not that attached to a tool.They are disposable to me.And again no link to your gallerie.I am sure you are a wonderfull photographer but I always try to look at someones images to back up what they think about a piece of equiptment..Over and over with the D300 crowd I hear nits about every other camera but Never see there images.I am not making it up.I loved the feel of the camera when I had it but in the end the images are what matters to me.Maybe not you but to me it matters
Hey shoot away for the experience that feels good in your hands as you seem to use them alot
This thread caught my attention. I've got a D300 that I've had for just over a year and am very happy with it. Someone earlier commented that D300 owners never post images and I decided to accept the challenge. That said, I'm very much a newbie both to this site and to digital photography having cut my teeth on Tri-X, Kodachrome and an FE2. As such I'm still trying to wrap my brain around all the nuances of buffers, pixels, bit files, etc. The photo below was shot last night with my D300 and my manual focus 180/2.8 at 1000 ISO. I shot in aperature priority program modes (I don't know why I didn't just shoot manual, I also forgot my monopod!)
Exposure was f/2.8 and the shutter kept bouncing between 1/120 and 1/200th.
Gaylon clicked on your link.Beutiful stuff.Your images are more about the photographer then the equiptment.You could have gotten those with a D5100.I mean that as a compliment.My opinion is that the d300 owners could have captured the images they got just as well or better with another camera once they learned the camera but they get stuck on certain aspects of the camera..It could be just the feel of the grip.a dial in just the right location,or a menu they fell in love with.Hell some just love the sound of the shutter.As for me being sick..hyperbole. If your photography experience is 50% camera 50% ergonomics good for you and sorry to offend..even though I did want to stir the pot
Ergonomics are very important to me and this is the primary source of my D7100 beefs. I don't get on well without the AF-On button and the location of the AE/AFL button is less than ideal for my hand/face relationship. Other niggles but I'll learn to live with 'em.
That said, the D7100 will be my primary camera for an upcoming sled dog event this next weekend. It will be a demanding scenario, 7 hour days in temperatures around 0-F and rapidly changing light. The D300s will go along as a back-up and will handle some ultra-wide angle fun. Chargin' my batteries and fluffin' up the long underwear.
Post them up when you get them.Dogs in snow always good.I have my nits with every camera I have shot.Right now with d7100 is buffer.I make it work shooting raw with a 95 mbs card but it could be much better.
Doug Maclean wrote:
Post them up when you get them.Dogs in snow always good.I have my nits with every camera I have shot.Right now with d7100 is buffer.I make it work shooting raw with a 95 mbs card but it could be much better.
Agreed. And I absolutely hate SD cards. Big hands, gloves and age make the little things fiddly.
I picked up some32GB 95 mbs Sandisk cards to replace my 16GB versions so I can change cards when its optimal and I'll be shooting NEF, 14 bit/compressed. No in-camera settings to slow things down. I've found this gives me a consistent fps and helps that poor little buffer a bit.
The big benefit the D7100 has over the D300 for this application is the nice high ISO output and the big files which make for quality crops on the long shots. Adding the grip helped out tremendously as I shoot quite often in portrait.
One other feature I wish the D300 had was the ability to turn Auto-ISO on and off with the sub-command dial like the D7100. That's a very handy trick for those of us whom use Auto ISO frequently.
And I absolutely hate SD cards. Big hands, gloves and age make the little things fiddly.
I too have problems with SD cards but at least I can deal with them.
You had better put some thought into which tweezers you choose to use on Micro SD cards so you do not break them.
Damn things are getting so small you will soon need magnifying glasses just to find them.
But they are coming. Many devices are already using them.
I too have problems with SD cards but at least I can deal with them.
You had better put some thought into which tweezers you choose to use on Micro SD cards so you do not break them.
Damn things are getting so small you will soon need magnifying glasses just to find them.
But they are coming. Many devices are already using them.
I actually find SD cards easier to get out with gloves on, since they don't have the fiddly little eject button. Just press the entire card and pull the entire card.
Don't expect to see MicroSD in real camera's anytime soon, MicroSD doesn't support UHS-II, which is where the next generation of SD cards are going (double the speed CF is capable of).
I actually find SD cards easier to get out with gloves on, since they don't have the fiddly little eject button. Just press the entire card and pull the entire card.
Don't expect to see MicroSD in real camera's anytime soon, MicroSD doesn't support UHS-II, which is where the next generation of SD cards are going (double the speed CF is capable of).
They are already using micro cards in camera phones and pocket cameras.
but
SDXC PCIe are about to go mainstream. 240 MBs out to be enough for 4k Video in a HDSLR.
These are FullSize, but micro will eventually follow.
Gaylon Holmes wrote:
The link is in my profile.
I just looked at some of your pictures and they are impressive. I have a D 300s and am very happy with it. I have picked up my son's D 90, but it seems too light and does not have the controls I have with the D 300s. Never use Video.
I'm still waiting for the D 400.
Personal ergonomics are a funny thing and more important to some than others. Some folks can grab any well featured camera and adapt to it quickly with no complaint. We have some kind of monkey-feller escapee from the ditches around here and it seems he can take most any photographic gizmo and record rodeos and cranes-in-flight without batting an eye. He has an innate skill set that I will never equal. I need old reliable, Will makes anything work.
I find I shoot noticeably better with equipment that seems to suit me from the get go. I loved the D200 and had no troubles going from it to the D300 but the smaller bodies (D90,D7000, D7100) just don't seem to cooperate as well. I've also found this to be the case for me in the shooting sports where I perform much better when shooting an antiquated 1911-style pistol as compared to the latest greatest double stack polygubersonic framed handgun with 15 different safeties to prevent my actually firing the damned thing.
I envy those whom are able to play every instrument in the band. Myself, well... I'm just the piano player.
Feb 02, 2014 at 10:25 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Christian H wrote:
If you're looking for a cheap DX body with nearly the D800's IQ - and with higher fps and bigger buffer than the D300 - the D7100 is a no-brainer. It just works. As with the D800, extremely annoying shit like blown highlights, noise, and having to worry about exposure have been consigned to the dustbin of photographic history. The 14-bit files will handle just about anything natural light can throw at them.
Sorry, but the D7100 does NOT have a bigger buffer than the D300 in terms of the # of shots that can be taken in a row. In fact, the pathetically crippled buffer has been a HUGE complaint about the D7100.
It boils down to this:
Better controls, ergonomics, build and a good buffer = D300
Better IQ, resolution, high-ISO performance = D7100
FPS is a wash. I've not used a D7100 enough to critique the AF performance, but the D300 is a good performer in that regard.
SD = flimsy, tiny
CF = fear of breaking pins in the camera
XQD = seems to be the best of both worlds.. rugged, fast, no pins to break. I wish Nikon puts XQD as an option to all cameras in the future. If the new D7200 has decent buffer and XQD it would be awesome.
The D7100 fires off 14-bit RAW files way faster than the D300s, which is super sluggish. It's the only file format I use, and the D7100 is about twice as fast the D300s. I can't comment on JPEG speed because I've never used it on either camera. The D7100 is as fast as my D800. I have no complaints - huge or otherwise - about either camera and, frankly, don't understand what people are talking about.
Feb 03, 2014 at 04:55 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Christian H wrote:
The D7100 fires off 14-bit RAW files way faster than the D300s, which is super sluggish. It's the only file format I use, and the D7100 is about twice as fast the D300s. I can't comment on JPEG speed because I've never used it on either camera. The D7100 is as fast as my D800. I have no complaints - huge or otherwise - about either camera and, frankly, don't understand what people are talking about.
Oh well, yes, since you use 14 bit raw it must be the only format worth talking about
14 bit raw was just coming out at the time of the D300 ... but in 12 bit raw, the D300 matches the frame rate of the D7100 and smokes the D7100 in terms of buffer depth. The same is true for jpg ... so in general, your statement was not correct.
Feb 01, 2014 at 07:51 PM
