Nikon Model #'s (Page 4): Not in this case. The D90 was a fine camera, and the first DSLR to include video capability. I wouldnt consider the D90 to be entry level as much as its...

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

dandekarv wrote:

So D90 is better than D300 and D300 is better than D7100?

Vasant

Not in this case. The D90 was a fine camera, and the first DSLR to include video capability. I wouldnt consider the D90 to be entry level as much as its predecessors were, but the D300 was, and is still, a superior camera, in both build and function.

Id rather have a D300/300S, but for the same money you can get a D7100 with a lens for the price of a D300 body alone.

amehta Loc: Boston

amehta wrote:

quote=MT Shooter Single digit Nikons are the Pro ... (show quote)

The levels are generally ranked as follows:
1. Dn, single digit, pro level
2. Dn00, 3-digits, prosumer level
3. Dn0 and Dnn00, consumer level

Sometimes different numbers mean "newer/older", other times they meany "different level". Right now, D3x00 is more entry level, D7x00 is more advanced, and the higher "x" means newer model.

Usually a slight upgrade is indicated by an "s" or "x".

The D610 is an exception, because of the PR problems with the D600 (the sensor issue was salvageable, the poor response to it was not).

"Prosumer" means better build quality, not necessarily a better overall camera.

And then there's the Df, a throwback to the manual focus film days...

amehta Loc: Boston

jerryc41 wrote:

Less is more. The more expensive the camera, the fewer digits in the model number.

Nikon model numbers in general do not follow this idea. In the specific case of D4 vs D40, it was correct, but not with the whole numbering scheme.

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

dandekarv wrote:

So D90 is better than D300 and D300 is better than D7100?

Vasant

There was a time when once 'could' have said that, but the D90 and D300 are much older models now, so in reality the D7100 is the current top of Nikon's DX lineup, and it would trump either in so many ways.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Rbrylawski wrote:

There was a time when once 'could' have said that, but the D90 and D300 are much older models now, so in reality the D7100 is the current top of Nikon's DX lineup, and it would trump either in so many ways.

Wouldnt you agree that the D300/300S is still going to be BUILT better and more like a tank than even the D7100? Sure, the D7100 has a more robust feature set than the D300/300S, but all putting megapixels aside, if you had the choice to have either camera, which would you choose and why?

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

kb6kgx wrote:

Wouldnt you agree that the D300/300S is still going to be BUILT better and more like a tank than even the D7100? Sure, the D7100 has a more robust feature set than the D300/300S, but all putting megapixels aside, if you had the choice to have either camera, which would you choose and why?

Yes, the D300/300S is built like a tank, but that's not, IMHO reason enough to choose it over a D7100. The D7100 is simply miles ahead technically, with more focus points, better low light performance, better IQ etc. I'd be more interested in the picture taking ability of the camera than it's built like a tank'ness.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

Unless, of course, you were a tank driver :)

Rbrylawski wrote:

Yes, the D300/300S is built like a tank, but that's not, IMHO reason enough to choose it over a D7100. The D7100 is simply miles ahead technically, with more focus points, better low light performance, better IQ etc. I'd be more interested in the picture taking ability of the camera than it's built like a tank'ness.

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

dtparker wrote:

Unless, of course, you were a tank driver :)

Why yes, that would change everything. Lucky for me I'm not a tank driver, so I can enjoy the advantages of my D7100 over a D300/300S!
:wink:

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Rbrylawski wrote:

Yes, the D300/300S is built like a tank, but that's not, IMHO reason enough to choose it over a D7100. The D7100 is simply miles ahead technically, with more focus points, better low light performance, better IQ etc. I'd be more interested in the picture taking ability of the camera than it's built like a tank'ness.

True, most of us are not going to be giving our expensive cameras a beating every time we use them. But let me play stupid just for a moment. What is the reason for more focus points? I can understand needing more than 1, or 9, but 39 or 51? What kind of photography would I be doing where that is will be a factor?

Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL

kb6kgx wrote:

True, most of us are not going to be giving our expensive cameras a beating every time we use them. But let me play stupid just for a moment. What is the reason for more focus points? I can understand needing more than 1, or 9, but 39 or 51? What kind of photography would I be doing where that is will be a factor?

It's pretty simple, the more focus points your camera has, the more accurate it's focusing. However, I did a little research and found that both the D300 and D300S also have a 51 point autofocus system. However, the D7100 is much faster, which is a big advantage with moving subjects.

Glider Loc: Austin

The three digit DSLR's are not all less well built than the pro level bodies. I shot a pair of D700's for years with MB-D10's attached and they were bullet proof. I finally broke one. Dropped just the body onto granite rocks from about 5' up. Viewing was screwed, but the camera continued to focus sharp and shoot for another 4 hours. Sent it to NPS and they turned it around in 4 days including replacing the shutter just as a precaution. D700 shutters were guaranteed for 150,000 actuations, but despite blowing way past that number, in 56 years behind a Nikon, I've never had a shutter problem. Besides, replacing it at Nikon is relatively cheap. $300, including the prism repair.
I've moved on to a pair of D4 and one D800 and the D4 shutter is guaranteed for 400,000 actuations. The camera is so fast it almost reads your mind. Buffering is also lightning fast, supporting more than100 frames at 11 fps. Rain is a non issue. So is temperature within what a human can tolerate. The 51 point focus points are not enough points. In studio, need to put the focus point in the eyes without having to reframe.
I'm really anxious to see what the D4s improves. If it's just video, I may pass. The current 4 does 1080p pretty well, but needs an external mike. I do not expect better low light. Now, iso of 12,800 is perfectly usable. One can always hope for more dynamic range, but the 4 is pretty good right now.
Anyway, that's my mind currently on Nikon. If someone wanted to be budget conscious and they are not concerned about video, I'd go for a used D700 for about $1,200-1,300. Same sensor as the D3 and tough as they come. With the D3 battery in the grip, it shoots 8-9fps.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Rbrylawski wrote:

It's pretty simple, the more focus points your camera has, the more accurate it's focusing. However, I did a little research and found that both the D300 and D300S also have a 51 point autofocus system. However, the D7100 is much faster, which is a big advantage with moving subjects.

Im all for faster focusing. I was playing with the top-of-the-line Coolpix model and it took forever to hunt for the right focus. I couldnt stand it. I want to press the shutter button half-way and BAM! have the shot in focus.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Glider wrote:

The three digit DSLR's are not all less well built... (show quote)

I dont really care about video, but its a nice feature to have for when the need comes up. But not a deal-breaker if it doesnt have that.

Still, if thats the price of a used D700, and I presume that is for the body only, but a D7100 can be had with the lens. Yes, its the kit lens, but

Glider Loc: Austin

According to www.nikonusa.com, price of a D7100 is $1,199.xx, body only. Now maybe there is a better deal elsewhere, but other than cost, why would you stay with a cropped sensor if you could get a full frame sensor for close to the same money. You get versatility, better low light capability and more lens options. If you could buy a D700 for $1,200, the you could also buy a used but excellent 50mm f/1.8 for around $80 and you essentially have a D3 with a slower frame rate. No brainer!

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Glider wrote:

According to www.nikonusa.com, price of a D7100 is $1,199.xx, body only. Now maybe there is a better deal elsewhere, but other than cost, why would you stay with a cropped sensor if you could get a full frame sensor for close to the same money. You get versatility, better low light capability and more lens options. If you could buy a D700 for $1,200, the you could also buy a used but excellent 50mm f/1.8 for around $80 and you essentially have a D3 with a slower frame rate. No brainer!

Of course Id rather have full frame! Who wouldnt? Continuous shutter is nice, on occasion, but I wouldnt be shooting sports. The only time I could see me needing it would be at air shows to give me a better chance at getting the shot rather than just taking a single chance of getting it right. It was one-at-a-time with my FE2 and F, before that, and it seemed to be OK for me. Whats the frame rate on a D700? About 5-6 fps?