ART Nikon D7000 vs D300s - suggest for this particular application

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but typically the D300s vs D7000 comparison is asked in general terms of "which camera is better".

I researched all the specs...

My question, which will hopefully be answered by someone who ones or has owned one of both of these cameras...which one would you recommend for sports photography?

These are the factors that are making this decision tough for me:
-I can get either camera for approximately the same price, so take cost out of the equation
-The D7000 controls are very similar to the D90 which I already have, so that is a positive, but I can certainly learn the layout of the D300s
-My primary reason for getting this camera is sports photography. The ~4fps of the D90 just won't cut it. The D7000 is rated at 6fps and the D300s is rated at 7fps, or 8fps with the battery grip.
-The D7000 has 16.2 MP while the D300s has 12.3 MP, along with a few other features that make the D7000 better in regards to image quality (on paper)

So...if the D7000 appears to have better image quality, why would I consider the D300s? I don't think the D300s is a "bad" camera... And it can shoot at +2 fps. Is that worth the sacrifice in image quality? 12.3MB isn't exactly shitty quality. And with sports/action photography the key is to nail the moment. Image quality is obviously important too, but its useless if you missed the moment. Yes, I know, your skill has a lot to do with the nailing the moment also - and $$$ cameras don't make up for a lack of skill, but they certainly help to make the talent you DO have look a little better.

Cliffs: Is the faster continuous speed of the D300s (8fps vs 6fps) worth the sacrifice of lower MPs for a sports photographer?

 

[Waddup you?]

I started on a d80, and now rock a d300. I cant see myself going back to a smaller sized camera if it were my main camera.

 

[Divided Sky]

isnt the d300 replacement one of the rumored replacements for today?

 

[Divided Sky]

oh nevermind, turns out it was just a bunch of freaking p&s'

first of all i dont think the megapixel thing is a concern, are you really gonna blow up a picture that large? second, i dont think youd really miss many shots with 6fps over 8 fps. did you look up how long you can burst fire for? i think that may make more of a difference. third, d300 replacement is expected this year

 

[michael]

Ask fryingpan. He was considering those 2, but for video.

 

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

That was something I should have included in my original post...I have zero desire to use this for video. So unless that changes, the video quality of the the D7000 can be disregarded as well.

 

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

I had this debate a little while back but decided to go with the d300s because of the built-in pc sync, 10-pin, and dual CF/SD slots. I still don't trust SD as my main card yet.

I know it is to be replaced very soon, but I didn't feel like the replacement was going to be all that great in terms of photos...probably better video.

Any regrets? Happy with your choice? I used both before (rentals) so I know I like them both...but it is one of those things that until you REALLY use it a lot, you won't uncover the quirks that may piss you off.

I also like the CF/SD combo. More flexibility...and I like to use the eye-fi card "tethered" to my iPad so SD is a must if I am going to keep doing that. Raw goes on the CF, low res jpg on the SD for previewing on iPad.

 

[s14brent]

I've had both cameras. In your situation I'd say D300s. Reasons being AF, controls and FPS. Someone here was complaining about the D7K's buffer. I never shoot sports in RAW, but some people do, and the buffer will be a problem for sure for you. Also D300s can use ENEL4A's which just last sooo much longer than the d7k's dual battery option.

 

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

Have you used the D7000 before as comparison? Or was your decision strictly based on research?

Kind of odd that most reviews put the D7000 ahead of the D300s, yet the D300s is still more expensive in most cases.

Of course "the best camera" is based on your actual use...that's why I'm leaning towards the D300s... Why can't this be easier! haha

 

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

pc sync...must learn more about this...

 

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

I've had both cameras. In your situation I'd say D300s. Reasons being AF, controls and FPS. Someone here was complaining about the D7K's buffer. I never shoot sports in RAW, but some people do, and the buffer will be a problem for sure for you. Also D300s can use ENEL4A's which just last sooo much longer than the d7k's dual battery option.

Didn't know about the difference in battery life. That is key also. Some of the events/sports I shoot I am quite aways from the car and it would be nice to lug one less change of batteries with me.

 

[MSIGuy]

D7k...

/Thread.

 

[michael]

D7k...

/Thread.

 

[havelegs]

300s

 

[koolaids]

oh nevermind, turns out it was just a bunch of freaking p&s'

first of all i dont think the megapixel thing is a concern, are you really gonna blow up a picture that large? second, i dont think youd really miss many shots with 6fps over 8 fps. did you look up how long you can burst fire for? i think that may make more of a difference. third, d300 replacement is expected this year

Having more megapixels let's you crop more and get more reach which is helpful with sports

 

[Jew_arson]

build quality- d300s

image quality- d7000

 

[huntz0r]

D7000 high ISO performance is significantly better than the D300(s) and D90. That is basically the only thing I have trouble with spending D300(s) money and not getting a D7k instead.

But if you have no complaint with noise from your D90, and you might not if you shoot largely sports in daylight, then there you go.

 

[Pikel]

As a D7K owner and sports shooter I say D7K by far. The ONLY thing D3Ks will do better in this situation is 8FPS instead of 6FPS... but 6FPS is still pretty fucking fast. I honestly don't think the difference will be that huge in what you get out of it... and do you really shoot sports full auto like that? Sure, sometimes and in short bursts, but not full out. I dunno.

D7K has better image quality. The sensor fucking kicks ass. The extra megapixels will be great for cropping (and therefore zooming) for sports, which is huge. And unless you are shooting in outdoors daylight all the time (doubt it), light is so important for sports photography. Most fields are darker at night than you think, and you need tons of light so you can shoot at as high of a shutter speed as you can to capture sports action. The D7K can go to well over 1600 ISO and be totally fine...

At this point I'm ranting but all things being equal I don't know why you'd take the D300s over the D7000 for this

 

[Pikel]

From the other night:

Like 2.8, 1/800, and 2000 ISO. Sup. Coulda pushed it even further I bet.

 

[Waddup you?]

build quality- d300s

image quality- d7000

good point. I wish my d300 had better high iso capabilities, but the D7000 definitely blows it away. all good, I"m still looking to upgrade to FF which would trump both. but if I had to choose between the two, I would go D300s, since I like the feel of the size, ergonomics. D7000 is a little too small, but would be a nice companion to my main camera(if I had one...)

 

[Idyfohu]

good point. I wish my d300 had better high iso capabilities, but the D7000 definitely blows it away. all good, I"m still looking to upgrade to FF which would trump both. but if I had to choose between the two, I would go D300s, since I like the feel of the size, ergonomics. D7000 is a little too small, but would be a nice companion to my main camera(if I had one...)

This.

The D7K will hold its value better since it just came out and the sensor is better, but the D300/D700 body is SOOO much nicer as I'm sure you know. Yes, it's bigger, but it's more solid and balances much better with nicer lenses. The D7K is much nicer than the D90, but to me having shot with a D300 and now my D700 (easily over a year now), I can't go back to the smaller bodies.

The high-iso performance is definitely hard to pass up though...honestly, if you're not in a huge rush, I'd wait for the D300 replacement. If anything, the D300s price will drop a $100 or so and will make the choice, possibly a bit easier (or buy the newer replacement if that's feasible).

 

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

Hmm....lot of good points both way.

At least they will hold their value somewhat. So whatever you buy, if you hate it and want to sell it a few months down the road you won't loose too much money. Not like a car or something like that.

At the moment, most of the events I shoot are during the day, so high iso capability isn't too much of a concern. But that could easily change in the near future.

I agree that with the higher MP it makes cropping easier (maintaining quality)

I don't just stand there and hold the shutter release, but there are moments where you want to get as many shots as possible and sort it out later. Flurry in a boxing match, catching a touchdown pass, baseball batter swinging, etc. Or making sequence shots. I know that improving my timing with the shutter will greatly improve me results as well. But 8fps is 33% faster than 6fps.

Hmm...maybe I'll just buy both! j/k

Thanks for all your input!

 

[Marix]

I'm gonna catch hate I know, but how invested are you in Nikon?

The newly announced a77 from Sony sounds quite ideal for the things you wanted...

24mp, so that's your resolution concerns dealt with
12fps with continuous autofocus
High ISO performance still unknown, but according to track history it should be good
Plus it's weather sealed, magnesium alloy body, 1/8000 shutter, sync port and 1/250 sync speed

 

[YourMomOnRyeBun]

Just looked at the video. Looks nice. Curious to read more reviews...

The main problem I would have is that I rent lenses quite a bit and the selection for Sony is pretty slim.

 

[Marix]

Yeh, fair enough

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sony/lenses

do have Sony, but I don't know about the availability