jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I wouldn't even consider the D300. It was introduced in 2008, vs 2013 for the D7100. The E- rating isn't great. "Built like a tank" doesn't mean much where electronics are concerned. Drop either camera, and it's a paperweight.

Read comparisons and decide what features are important to you.

http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/compare/

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I would skip the D300. The D7100 has many more advanced features. It's a much finer camera. Better glass will work EVEN BETTER on the 7100 than the 300...

OviedoPhotos

Go for the 7100.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Why even ask.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Where did you get this information????

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is not difficult to resolve. If the D300, a very capable camera, has the features that you need for your photography you are saving a lot of money.
I never experienced any limitations with my D300. I upgraded to the D7000 because it had some features I knew would help me to improve my shots. If the D300 can do what you need save your money for good glass.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

My advice is to buy both what you want and what you can afford. If you have limited or no glass, the cheaper camera may be best. If you have a budget in mind, get you purchases within that number. That being said, each new camera release contains something that the previous versions didn't have, so a more current version SHOULD be better for you. If there are features you will never need/want, ignore them and get the camera that fits YOUR needs/wants. The answer to this question, regardless of brand, is very personal. Only you know what you will be happy with and there are many excellent cameras to be had, some at great used prices! Best of luck to you.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Refurb D5300. Less than the D7100 but same images and, IMHO, better features: lighter weight, easier to operate because of INFO screen approach, and extremely useful articulated screen. And less money.

It also has a couple of features I don't use: WIFI and GPS.

My wife and I each have one. I find I grab it in preference to my D800 about 2/3 of the time.

EdR Loc: Gig Harbor, WA

The fire and elms crews in our area do a lot of night calls. That might also be a consideration.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It is essentially the pixel density of each sensor. It is calculated from the manufacturer's specifications for physical size and pixel dimensions. The D810 sensor is listed as 35.9mm wide with 7380 pixels. 7380 / 35.9 / 2 = 102.78 line pairs per mm. The D7100 is 23.5mm wide with 6036 pixels across. 6036 / 23.5 / 2 = 128.43 line pairs per mm.

The catch to understanding the significance of that number is in the statement about detail on bird feathers within a range of certain types of lenses. If the image projected onto the sensors is exactly the same, the D7100 has more resolution ("more pixels on the subject" ). That would happen if the focal length of the D810 lens is 1.5x the focal length of the D7100 lens. If the D810 focal length is increased by 128/103 the image resolution will then be identical. Of course if the one longest lens available is used on both cameras, the D810 image will have less resolution. Either the sensor or the focal length can change the image resolution and the D7100 only has higher resolution when a longer focal length cannot be used (the resolution is focal length limited) on the D810.

Data for ISO comparisons between a D300 and a D7100 are available from a number of sources, but I prefer Bill Claff's charts.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D300,Nikon%20D7100

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Your common sense is telling you the right thing.
I could give you a lot of reasons but the fact is the D7100 is a much better Camera.
Craig

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

The D7100 has two sdcard slots. The D300 has the Compac Card. That's a deal breaker. I regularly read about bent pins and other problems with CC. The dual slots recently saved my tush. I use the second slot as a backup, writing to both cards. One of my SDCards failed when I tried to read the files, the computer couldn't see any files. It immediately took the files from the second card. Using the second slot as a backup and it came through.



Beyond that there are several technological improvements.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I would have to agree with you, especially that last comment. Even if I dropped my old Nikon F, I might have to take even THAT to the shop afterward. And, as anyone who remembers that model, it literally WAS built like a tank. Not today’s cameras, though.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

In my original post, I typed “Camera”, I meant “Cameta”, but autocorrect “fixed” it. And the site won’t let me edit it now.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Having “played with” these in the store, I find that the D3xxx and the D5xxx series are just a tad too small for my hands. They just don’t “feel right”. Partially because my 5th finger, “pinky”, is swinging in the breeze with nothing to do. The D7xxx (as well as the full-frames), are slightly larger, and all fingers hug the grip as they should. Just feels more secure.

Not interested in “smaller” and “lighter”. I come from the Nikon F, which was Nikon’s way of wearing a brick around your neck.

I also don’t care about the articulating screen. For my purposes, it’ll be an unused feature. I also see it as something that could potentially break.

A “touch-screen” feature, such as on some Canons, could be very useful, but even not having that would not be a deal-breaker.