Nikon D300/300s

[NWDAD]

Does anyone think that Nikon will upgrade the 300/300s? I have a D7000 now and DW has a D7100. Thinking of upgrading mine but do not want to go full frame.

Thanks, Kevin

 

[Geoff_M]

My gut tells me that Nikon will now stick with putting APS-C sized sensors in their consumer Dxxxx bodies and full frame ones in their "prosumer" and pro bodies. I too didn't want to make the move to FF, but I picked up a used D700 and after using it, I've decided that the D300s will be my last APC-S camera. I miss the extra reach of my glass with the 700, but the image quality makes up for it. I love the extra performance in low light too.

 

[havoc315]

Does anyone think that Nikon will upgrade the 300/300s? I have a D7000 now and DW has a D7100. Thinking of upgrading mine but do not want to go full frame.

Thanks, Kevin

It's a great mystery. With the 7dii and A77ii on the market, I definitely think Nikon *might* answer with a D310 or D400...... BUT..

Nikon's strategy is definitely to push people towards full frame. Many see the D750 as a semi-D300 successor. Great AF, decent frame rate of 6.5 fps.. and not much more expensive than a D300-like camera.
With full frame being more affordable, there is less compelling reason for prosumer APS-C cameras. (Though such cameras still have definite advantages for sports and wildlife... so there is indeed still a real market for such cameras but less of a market than when full frame was out of the budget of hobbyists).

What are your reasons for not wanting to go full frame? Other than slightly more expensive than a comparable prosumer APS-C camera, the only real disadvantage of full frame is loss of "reach" for sports and wildlife. (Though improved image quality allows more cropping, making up for the decreased reach to some degree).

 

[xlxo]

I don't know what to think..... the D400 rumors has been going for several years. Some say the D300s is the D400. Some say the D7100 is the D400. Perhaps the question is what is missing in the D7100 that is not in the D400? Weather seals? Metal body?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=nikonrumors+d400

 

[xlxo]

What are your reasons for not wanting to go full frame? Other than slightly more expensive than a comparable prosumer APS-C camera, the only real disadvantage of full frame is loss of "reach" for sports and wildlife.

If I'm not being paid and image quality is not important for me (eg travel). I will leave the FX camera at home and grab the DX. The DX camera is lighter (ie 18-200mm DX vs 28-300mm FX).

 

[havoc315]

If I'm not being paid and image quality is not important for me (eg travel). I will leave the FX camera at home and grab the DX. The DX camera is lighter (ie 18-200mm DX vs 28-300mm FX).

True, *if* those are the lenses you'd use on each.
But the camera body is no heavier -- for example, the d750 is actually lighter than the d300. In fact, the d750 with 28-300 may be lighter than d300 with 18-200.

But also, as I said, it's just a matter of reach. I rarely ever need 300mm. I never ever shoot with super zooms. I'd mostly be using the same lenses, regardless of whether fx or dx, just with less reach. I'd be packing my 70-200, my 50/1.8, either way. The only dx lens I'd pack would be wide angle.

So yes, absolutely easier to get long telephoto reach on aps-c with a lighter package. But if you're not shooting telephoto much.... What is the reason to avoid ff?

 

[hakepb]

True, *if* those are the lenses you'd use on each.
But the camera body is no heavier -- for example, the d750 is actually lighter than the d300. In fact, the d750 with 28-300 may be lighter than d300 with 18-200.

But also, as I said, it's just a matter of reach. I rarely ever need 300mm. I never ever shoot with super zooms. I'd mostly be using the same lenses, regardless of whether fx or dx, just with less reach. I'd be packing my 70-200, my 50/1.8, either way. The only dx lens I'd pack would be wide angle.

So yes, absolutely easier to get long telephoto reach on aps-c with a lighter package. But if you're not shooting telephoto much.... What is the reason to avoid ff?

The D300s had a bit more FPS and a 1/8000 shutter speed. Those are about the only options I can think of that might be easier on an APSc camera vs FF.

The D300 also had better "controls"..like the FF cameras and a "bigger" buffer. There is no APSc buffer advantage if they both have 24mp sensors.

 

[havoc315]

The D300s had a bit more FPS and a 1/8000 shutter speed. Those are about the only options I can think of that might be easier on an APSc camera vs FF.

The D300 also had better "controls"..like the FF cameras and a "bigger" buffer. There is no APSc buffer advantage if they both have 24mp sensors.

Exactly my thinking. Not that there is anything wrong with APS-C, but if you take price out of the equation, not too many cons of going full frame. Even the size difference is often exaggerated -- while as a general statement, fullframe cameras are bigger, there are big APS-C cameras that are bigger than small full frame cameras and lenses.

FPS rates are often faster on APS-C, but that's again a budget issue --- When comparing $1500-$2500 cameras, APS-C cameras can have faster FPS rates. But if willing to spend $$$$, there is the 1DX and D4s.

The "downside" of full frame really only comes in to play with wildlife and sports.... Where an APS-C shooter can get effective 450mm of reach with a mid-sized lens (typical 70-300), while a full frame shooter would need massive and expensive glass.