A Site for Photographers by Photographers

d300s vs d7000!???

Allan M , Sep 23, 2010; 02:49 p.m.

I would like to know if the d7000 is worth it over the d300s?


    1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5     Next    Last

Dave Lee , Sep 23, 2010; 02:53 p.m.

Well, in my opinion, it is. 1080p video for starters. Smaller size, lighter weight, is a huge plus in favor of the D7000. Cheaper price too. What's there not to like in the D7000?

Matt Laur , Sep 23, 2010; 02:54 p.m.

Impossible to answer if you don't say how you'll be using it, whether you care about things like SD vs. CF cards, if you already have other gear that might use the same vertical grip or batteries, etc. You need to give a lot more information before anyone could possibly help you decide that.

You might also want to read over this little thread to see lots of discussion about the D7000, and what people think about it so far.

Matt Laur , Sep 23, 2010; 02:55 p.m.

What's there not to like in the D7000?

That's the problem. We don't know what his priorities are. Perhaps he needs the D300's faster frame rate, or the greater number of focus points and the AF system that the D300 shares with Nikon's top of the line pro bodies. There may be nothing not to like, or there may be a real show-stopper of a single thing not to like. We don't know what lenses or shooting style will be involved, so we don't know if the heavier body is a good thing or a bad thing.

Shun Cheung , Sep 23, 2010; 02:56 p.m.

In the preview article, I have a table comparing features on the D7000, D90, and D300S: http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/D7000/preview/

It looks like the D300S still has better AF and faster frame rate. The D7000 only shoots compressed RAW (no uncompressed) and does not have that 10-pin terminal for connections. Otherwise, the D7000 is clearly newer technolgoy.

Zach Ritter , Sep 23, 2010; 02:59 p.m.

Is lossless compressed really any worse than uncompressed? I guess that would depend on how they are doing the compression, but I would guess no.

Matt Laur , Sep 23, 2010; 03:05 p.m.

There's no compression, lossless compression, and lossy compression. The D7000 only has the latter. Something has to give when you throw away data. Mind you, when I choose lossy compressoin on my D300, it's just about never an issue. But it's detectable, if you're looking at large gradient areas, etc.

Shun Cheung , Sep 23, 2010; 03:08 p.m.

Zach, the details are not completely clear yet. The D90 only has lossy compressed RAW, no uncompressed nor lossless compressed. According to DPReview, the D7000 has compressed RAW only and I assume that it is the same as the D90: lossy only: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/NikonD7000/page2.asp

It also looks like if you shoot RAW + JPEG, it is always JPEG fine.

I have already highlighted the important points in the preview. Some of the fine details we just have to wait until we have a D7000 in our hands or at least when Nikon publishes a manual in PDF.

Zach Ritter , Sep 23, 2010; 03:08 p.m.

Matt, compression doesn't always mean loss of data. It could just mean a more compressed way to write data while still retaining all data.

For instance, you zip a file, and then unzip it, you have not lost any data. Or you compress javascript by removing extra whitespace and changing variable names to things basically unreadible to humans, but very readable to a computer. Once again, no information is lost.

Zach Ritter , Sep 23, 2010; 03:09 p.m.

D7000 specs on NikonUSA list lossless compressed RAW. I would hope that Nikon didn't screw up their specs when writing it on their official page. http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25468/D7000.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs

    1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses