Another Which do I buy? question: Yes, I know. Here we go again! :) Which is a better way to go? Nikon D7100 refurbished for $579, at Camera, or a used D300 (not S) for at Adorama...

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Yes, I know. Here we go again! :)

Which is a better way to go? Nikon D7100 refurbished for $579, at Camera, or a used D300 (not S) for at Adorama for $289 (rating E-)?

The D300 is built like a tank, better on the shutter burst and is half the cost of the D7100. However, the D7100 has twice the MPs and more features (most of which Ill never use, anyway.

Both are 51-point AF.

My gut is to go for the D300 and use the extra money for better glass. But the D7100 has the EXPEED 3 sensor, compared with the EXPEED for the D300. I dont care that the D300 does not have video, as Im more interested in still photography.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

kb6kgx wrote:

.../...

You answered your own question. D300. Glass is the single most important thing after the GIB.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

kb6kgx wrote:

... Im more interested in still photography.

Exactly what will you be using it for?

An example would be that the D7100 resolution, at 128 lp/mm, is better than even the D810, and the high ISO ability is as good as an APC-S sensor gets (significantly better than a D300). If you want detail on bird feathers in dim light from lenses that can be hand held, grab that D7100 now!

If you are using it for studio product photography to post on eBay, why pay more than the cost of a D300?

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Apaflo wrote:

Exactly what will you be using it for?

An example would be that the D7100 resolution, at 128 lp/mm, is better than even the D810, and the high ISO ability is as good as an APC-S sensor gets (significantly better than a D300). If you want detail on bird feathers in dim light from lenses that can be hand held, grab that D7100 now!

If you are using it for studio product photography to post on eBay, why pay more than the cost of a D300?

Would be using for general photography including travel, local emergency (fire/ems), mostly outdoors in normal daylight. Not really interested in video would might be nice to have the capability just in case (so that would knock the D300 out just for that reason).

Im not against old cameras (having used a Nikon F back which, by the time my dad passed it over to me, was already old), but theres quite a jump from EXPEED to EXPEED 3. Megapixel count isnt that important as the largest I can imagine printing to would be 11x14 (of which Ive printed a grand total of 3 from back in my film days). Again, nice to have the capability if needed.

My gut tells me that the D300 is all I need, but common sense tells me that the best overall would be the D7100.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

kb6kgx wrote:

My gut tells me that the D300 is all I need, but common sense tells me that the best overall would be the D7100.

There is a big hitch in that concept though! It sounds as if you might be just a little bit of an experimenter and explorer at heart, who might some day realize "Hey, this camera can do a _____!" and so you go try to do whatever is in the blank.

Skip the D300 if you can actually afford the D7100.

The low light capability is just about 1 full fstop greater. The D300 only goes up to ISO 3200 (with regular ISO), the D7100 goes to 6400 and it is actually useful.

It has twice the pixel count (which means you can crop out more area and still have a decent print). 128 line pairs per mm resolution is finer detail that a D810 can provide.

The D300 has 1 CF card slot. (Some may consider the CF card an advantage). The D7100 has 2 slots, but both are for SD cards.

Another issue that may be extremely important, is the frame rate for shooting in continuous burst modes. A casual look at most comparisons shows both models shooting at 5 fps. But that is only true in 12-bit mode for the D300. It drops to 2.5 fps when shooting 14-bit RAW, which is generally what you'd want to use...

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Apaflo wrote:

There is a big hitch in that concept though! It s... (show quote)

Thank you. Youve helped make my decision. For my needs, the D7100, and a factory refurb at that, would make the best choice. Dont see the huge advantage, and to spend more money, for the D7200. The only major advantage for me might be the better buffer, but thats about it.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I have a D300 that I love for all the reasons you outline, I have used it in extreme weather and the weatherproofing performed flawlessly. I also had the same feeling that you have, I.e. Video is not important. But, now that I am shooting a D800, I've had two occasions where a short video worked better; once while on a speeding small boat in the Arctic Sea and once on a stormy beach in Norway. For me, having the video available is a plus.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

The refurb deal on the D7100 at adorama sounded pretty good to me.

Jahawk Loc: Rhode Island

Cdouthitt wrote:

The refurb deal on the D7100 at adorama sounded pretty good to me.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 73s

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

In my book, it isn't much of a contest. The D7100 is a all around camera.

JPL

kb6kgx wrote:

Yes, I know. Here we go again! :) br br Which is ... (show quote)

Well, of course there is no doubt that the D7100 is a better camera. That is why it is also at double the price of the D300. But if you are not shooting at night without a flash all the time and if you are not making big prints then there is not much to gain with the D7100. What you get in that camera is basically more megapixels and better low light capabilities. Other differences do not matter to most people. If that is what you need you can double your investment and buy the D7100, otherwise the D300 will do the job.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

joehel2 wrote:

For me, having the video available is a plus.

Thats my feeling, as well. A plus, but not a necessity. But Id like it to be there should I need to have it. Im one of those who feels that if your primary interest is video, then get a camcorder. Again, nice to have the capability in your DSLR should the need arise.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Jahawk wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 73s

Somebody else is a radio geek, here :)

Jahawk Loc: Rhode Island

kb6kgx wrote:

Somebody else is a radio geek, here :)

KD1UA :lol: :lol:

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

JPL wrote:

Well, of course there is no doubt that the D7100 i... (show quote)

Exactly what I stated at the outset. The D300 will do the job for what I need, not only now, but probably 95% of the time. But for that other 5%, its like how I justified having my 300mm f4.5, back in the day. Hardly ever used it. But when those situations came up, that was the only lens that would do the job.

I appreciate everyones input, here.