SANParks.org Forums

Hello everybody!

Currently I have a d300 and a d70s. For some time already I want to replace my d70s by a camera similar to or better than the d300. This was supposed to be the d400. For ages now I have been waiting for that camera to be released but it seems I have been waiting in vain. I am leaving for Africa on 22 february and I definitely want a new body before I leave. The d70s is not up to standard any more to do justice to my 2 lenses (70-200 f2.8 VR II and a 300 f4, 1.4 converter).

The two most important features for me would be the fps rate and the performance at high ISO values. Number of MP is a bit less important but of course not unimportant. Full frame or DX sensor is less an issue for me since (at least at my travels to Africa) the standard lens on the new camera would be the 70-200 f2.8. Since I am mostly pointing at critters the cropfactor is by no means a real disadvantage.

What would the Nikon connoisseurs recommend me to buy. I see 4 options

- d7000: good for the budget, good fps, upgrade compared to d300 regarding mp but not brand new and maybe replaced in a couple of months. Also the ergonomy is different to the d300 in the way that it feels less professional
- d300s: a tad better than d300 but even older than the d7000. same “feeling” as d300.
- d600. Full frame, megacamera. 5.5 fps which is less than I expected when I was thinking about a new top notch camera but still very acceptable. DX still possible at around 10 mp. Good high iso performance. Camera handling less “pro” than d300.
- d800. Everything looks stunning about this monster. 4.5 fps is a tad disappointing thoug (5.5 at DX, still 15 mp). I also fear a bit the 36 MP. Doesn’t’ this mean that performance on high ISO is less than with d600? Very expensive also. I could afford it ( I have been saving money for years now) but is it worth the extra compared to the d600 or put in another way, if you are going to spend 1900 euro on a d600, isn’t it better to go that bit further and pay 2500 for the d800?


Questions questions questions….I hope to get some answers here.

Difficult one this. The framerates are really bad. (I did not know they were this bad! My 7D that costs about half of a D600/700 has 8 frames per second.)
The best ones (D3X and D4) do have a good framerate, but a very high price as well.

D600 vs D7000 by Ken Rockwell, that should help a bit?

In my view, you really only have only three options.

Continue to use your D300. Just because better, more up-to-date equipment has been released over the years in no ways makes the D300 obsolete in any way. There are simply better suited cameras available to your existing needs. i.e. Wait for the D7000 upgrade, which will almost certainly not be available before your upcoming trip;

Get a D7000. Great camera, but will probably be replaced soon and then you may be disappointed for not waiting. I have this camera and I have to say that I am still not disappointed with its performance. This will be a good upgrade to the D300 performance wise, but note that you would lose some "ruggedness" of the D300. Low light performance will, however, be noticeably better;

Get the D600. All reports point this to be Nikon's best camera in the price/performance arena. I would upgrade if I had the chance, but that would require not only the camera body, but a bunch of longer lenses too, which is just not going to happen for me in a hurry. Low light performance will be a huge improvement over the D300, but this camera, too, is NOT built to deal with the same level of durability of the D300 (as you stated).

The D800 seems to be an overkill for your stated needs and does not match your frames per second. This is really a specialised camera for studio and/or landscape work and the files sizes are rather large to handle for day-to-day pictures. Rather put your extra available cash to a 24-70 f2.8 for those times when the 70-200 is simply too long for the task at hand........

My choice, given what you have stated as your requirements, would be firstly, the D600, then a wait for the D7000 upgrade, then the D7000. An oh, I would also get a 27-70 f2.8, if I had the funds available.......

While Ken Rockwell does have some interesting things to say, I generally take his views with a large bag of salt. and often seek alternate opinions from his. Many of his views are controversial. I do extensive internet research on may different sites and would recommend that you read the following three reviews:
http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d600
http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d7000
http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d800


Let us know what you finally decide, and ....... no matter the final decision, enjoy your trip

Hi. One thing that hasn't been mentioned re the D800 (36 million pixels) yet is the ability to use the in camera crop of 1.5 and still get a file of approx 14 million pixels. This allows you to use a 300mm lens plus a 1.4 extender plus the 1.5 crop which gives you a focal length of 630mm. Yes you can crop with some of the other bodies, but your useable file size is very small and so will deteriorate your image quality.

Canon 7D: € 1.119,-
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM: € 1.277,-
So call it 2400 euro, the price of some of the bodies you are looking at.

Makes for a killer combo at 18 MP, 8 frames per second, sharp, though not as sharp as fixed focus.
ISO 5000 is very usable in my experience.


P.S. You don't live too far from me. If you bring a CF card of your own (so you can take the photos home) you are welcome to swing my camera around to test it.

Spend your money on better lenses?

Hi Salva,

I am by no means a pro or experienced amateur but...

I do have a Nikon D7000 and on my last trip a hired a 70-200 and 1.7 convertor, ( images of Kruger 2012 on my website)

and I know have a nikon 200-400 f4, and I love this lens, I got it second hand so half the price of new, it focuses really quickly and produces some great shots..

( check out my 'from the garden' pictures taken with my new lens, some with 1.4 TC)

so my advice get a 200-400 f4 and if you have spare cash then get a new body

john

Thanks all for the tips!

It will be the D800. Yes it might seem a bit overkill for what I stated BUT I did swing it around one day. A friend of mine owns one.

OK, only 4 frames per second which for me is a con. And the 36MP requires a lot of storage capacity. But my day of testing the camera gave me an insight in its pros and they are huge. Immense detail in images, an incredible dynamic range, excellent high ISO performances, a VERY good autofocus (just after release the D800 seemed to have trouble with this but not any more let me tell you) but most of all...it LOVED my 70-200 2.8 lens. That will be the lens I will put on the new "baby". NO teleconverters or anything will be used with that combination. If needed I will use the 1.2 DX mode (still a whopping 25MP AND an acceptable 5fp/s which is the same of my D300) and if the action would be a bit too far I can eventually switch to 1.5DX (still 15MP). But I don't expect to do the last option too much simply because the 36MP or the 25MP will give me a lot of options to crop during the post processing.

The 300f/4 will be mounted on the D300. When really needed I will put my 1.4TC on that combination allthough when I do that I have to get rid of the UV protective filter on the lens. When I leave the filter on the images are just too soft when the TC is used.

To the ones who advised me to ge better lenses instead of a better camera...I hear you people. The thing is, the 70-200 VRII f/2.8 and the 300 f/4 is the best I can afford. I would have to upgrade to a 300 f/2.8 or a 200-400 f/4. Both these options are way more expensive than a d800 and do not forget I really need a new body.

Why not the D7000? Because its successor is due for april this year and I actually don't like the handling of that camera very much (by the way, there is sort of an improved version of the D7000 in the D800 )

And Duques…nice try to get me over to the dark side but no chance buddy! Serious, the 7D looks like a fantastic body and the 8f/s is just fabulous. On all other aspects however the D800 is at least as good. It is actually more the competitor of the Canon 5d mark iii. And the 100-400 is of course a good lens but I have always been very happy about the 300 f/4 and of course about the 70-200 f/2.8. I think in that respect that the sharpness of the 100-400 might disappoint me a tad (although only a tad I’m sure).

I am sure the D800 has everything in it to please me and will encourage me to become a better photographer. But if I would have been a Canonite the choice would have been less difficult and I would have gone straight for the 7D.

Congratulations on your decision. The performance of the sensor in the D800 is only surpassed by the performance in the D800e, and that is only owing to the filters in front of the sensor. Currently it is the king of sensor performance (on average) over a number of criterion.

There are a number of compromises with this camera and you have mentioned them; Frame rate is limited by current technology and will get better as technology improves, and file sizes, which is a function of the 36MP sensor. For the file-size issue, simply get a PC with sufficient memory and disk space to handle such file sizes and the perceived bottleneck will simply disappear.

In terms of the comments regarding getting better glass, aside from upgrading your 300mm f4 to 300mm f2.8, you already have the best. You will certainly be disappointed in the performance of the 100-400, probably getting better performance with your 70-200 with a converter in any event. Your 300mm f4 lacks VR and lacks an aperture of F2.8, but in terms of sharpness it loses nothing over the F2.8 model. Unless you absolutely have to have F2.8 and/or VR, there is no logical reason to upgrade.

While Canon users may believe they have a competitor in their line-up to the D800, this is simply not the case. In terms of overall sensor performance (as defined and tested by DXO), Nikon trounces all so-called competitors and even the D600 sensor beats the 5D mkIII on performance by a wide margin, as does the D7000 over the 7D. However, having said that, sensor performance and camera/lens combination performance can only be fully exploited by someone that is well versed in both the exploitation of the technology to the fullest extent AND the artistic ability to set, frame and capture the required image.

I believe that it is unlikely that many people will be able to tell the difference between similar images captured by different combinations and the advancement of technology is getting to a point where the improvements are almost beyond what the human eye can determine.

Exactly my point of vue regarding the lenses! VR on the 300 f4 would be nice BUT...I use it almost exclusively on a beanbag. Next to that the aperture wide open often makes it possible to have shutter speeds of 1/1000 and faster (if when I stop down a bit). Fast enough to handhold so...

Thank you by the way for the links you gave me. They are one of the factors to help me decide.

And of course I second your last paragraph. I am however convinced as I said before that the D800 will push me to learn more about photography. It would be a pity to purchase such a beast and not trying to use it to a full extent!

Just what I feared, the day bedore my departure they announce the D7100

This was actually more or less what I was looking for. Looks really great.

Oh well, I hae the D800 now and the more I practice with this beast the more convinced I am that it was after all the best choice. Every time I crop I am amazed by the detail captured in the FX images.