D300 or D7000

[Beemermark]

I've had a D200 for a number of years and when the D300 came out I figured I'd upgrade when I had some extra $$$. The time has come but now I see the D7000 with what appears to be better specs and less money. Which one do I get?

I like the D200 (except maybe for the menus) and do not want to go thru a learning curve with a new camera. Plus I'll probably keep the D200 as a backup camera and like similarities.

Preponderance of photos are still life or landscapes. I have lots of manual lenses that I am not planning to part with. So AF is not of major importance.

Rugged and water resistance is high on my list. I really manage to bang cameras around. I also go to the beach a lot.

I use AE and manual modes and never take the time to figure out anything else. I also rarely use flash and when I do, its the pop up on AE mode.

I would never use the movie mode, nor do I care about FPS.

Then again, maybe I should keep the D200?

 

[James24]

I've had a D300 but not a D7000. The build quality and AF speed are the areas where the D300 wins over the D7000.

Something else you might want to consider, especially as you have manual focus lenses, is a carefully used D700. Prices have fallen with the introduction of newer models.

 

[bugmenot]

You should consider the D300S model. That matches the D7000 in features, and surpasses it in build quality (except when it comes to video, where the D7000 has the advantage). The D300S goes for 800-1000 dollars used on CL in Canada, which matches the used price of the D7000.

 

[Bobbo]

I'd go for the D7000. It's smaller, but the build is on par with the D300 (metal body, etc). It also has better high ISO performance, an AI indexing ring for old lenses, two memory card slots, better video and it costs less. The D300s is still a D300, just with video added and a few minor tweaks. Overall image performance is improved in the D7000 over the D300-- it's a newer camera by two years.You'll see a dramatic improvement over that of your D200, more so than with a D300.

 

[thegman]

I have a D7000, never used a D300. It's my first ever DSLR, and I like it. My paranoia likes the 2 card slots, and the > o < style of manual focus confirm is excellent. It has good compatibility with older lenses, and all round I'm very happy with it. I know nothing about the D300, but I must say there is little to be disappointed with on the D7000.

 

[ChrisP]

D700. Same body as D300 (so similar to D200) but FF goodness. There are still very few cameras which can best the D700 (unless you have a ton of DX glass sitting around)

 

[Bob Michaels]

.....................
Then again, maybe I should keep the D200?

Maybe identification of what your D200 does not do that you want it to, or what you wish it did better would help make the decision process a bit more logical.

 

[Murchu]

Having owned a D200 (and loved it), the sensor advantages in terms of dynamic range and high iso performance of the D300 were abundantly apparent, and not just a meaningless upgrade. Given the D7000 is even a step beyond that, I would advise the D7000, unless there is something it cannot do, over a D300, that is a vital requirement. The sensor quality of the newer Nikons really is amazing, and is fast closing the gap on dynamic range, one of the few things that film has over digital on a technical level. I love film by the way, just saying that soon enough the technical reasons to use film over digital will soon be gone, in my opinion, and the decision to use either media will be for aesthetic or other reasons.

 

[-doomed-]

The D7000 is a fantastic camera, I went from the D200 to the D7000. Apart from the size difference, I'd take the D7000 any day. Solid build like the D200 and it performs pretty well into the absurdly high ISO's when needed. I've shot with mine well into the ISO 10,000 range with usable results. The only thing I'd like more is the D700 for the full frame and similar absurd high ISO performance. On the 7000, files up to 3200 are pretty clean.

 

[Captain Trips]

I went through this last year, D300s, D7000. Ended up with a D2Xs!. The only thing the D7000 was going to give that the D2X wouldn't was high ISO performance and video. I don't care about video and I will use a flash if need be.

In your situation, I would go a used D700 or a D7000. My preference would be the D700.

 

[Beemermark]

Maybe identification of what your D200 does not do that you want it to, or what you wish it did better would help make the decision process a bit more logical.

That's a good question. Mostly looking for improved image performance (I think my M8.2 is far better, and it isn't all lens performance). Also, and this is the big one, I want to install an improved focusing screen (Katz?). But the screen is relatively expensive and I do not want to install it in a well used D200. Another thing is size, I have some fairly large lenses and I hate small bodies and big lenses (old 80~200/2.8, 300/4, 28~80/2.8 all AF).

So now we've thrown the D700 into the mix, but I doubt if that's come down enough in price for what I want to spend.

 

[Keith]

The D700 would be my pick also but it could be some time before used prices come down to a bargain level. The D800 hasn't really made the D700 old news in the way it could have. This of course is due to just how good the D700 is so maybe it's worth considering making the stretch financially?

 

[Beemermark]

Maybe i should unload some of my Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Topcon, Argus, Rolleiflex, and Lord know what else film collections and buy the D700 -🙂

 

[semordnilap]

I've been thinking of selling my d7000 with katz screen but haven't gotten around to making it happen... Let me know if you might be interested.

 

[Corto]

I played around with my Brotherinlaws 700 and it is impressive.

However with batterygrip and a fat lens on it, man, cumbersome....

I dont mind heavy at all, but for a everyday DSLR it would not be my choice.

 

[ronnies]

I handled a D7000 in a local shop the other day and it felt very much like the plastic (?) grips on my old D70 rather than the rubber grips on my D200. Doesn't feel as nice or as solid to me as the D200/D300. I've never yet felt the need to upgrade my D200.

Wait and see if Nikon brings out a 'D400' this summer/autumn?

Ronnie

 

[dreilly]

I had a D7000 and didn't like it compared to my D300s. The D300s felt better built, handled a bit better (less crowded), seems to have better AF. The D7000 has cleaner high ISOs by a step. That's about the only advantage there. D300s just felt better in my hand. D700 is much more like the D300s in terms of size and handling, etc and would be my top choice. I saw one on FM for about $1500. That's amazing!

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I had the D7000. Great camera... much better dynamic range than either the D200 or D300. But... you might want to wait to see what the impending D600 looks like. I suspect its going to be released at Photokina in the fall. Full frame at a very reasonable cost ($1500?), at least according to the rumors. 🙂

 

[Mudman]

I've seen the D7000, have a friend that uses one. It looks more like a toy compared to my D300, but he gets great results from it and the IQ is supposed to be great. Regarding the D2 series versus D300 - I still love and shoot my D2x at any iso under 1600 compared to my D300. I like the rendering better. If I buy a D700 or D3, I would sell the D300 and keep the D2x.

 

[Phantomas]

D7000. About the only area where D300 (or D300s even) would win is build quality, and D7000 is not too far behind there either.