Nikon D7000 vs D300s

Ever since Nikon released the new Nikon D7000, I have been getting a lot of emails from people who are asking if they should go with the D7000 or with the older Nikon D300s. To make it easier for our readers, I decided to post a quick comparison between the two in this “Nikon D7000 vs D300s” article.

Nikon D7000

The new Nikon D7000 is a new generation DSLR that sits between D90 and D300s, which can be classified as an “semi-professional DSLR”. It features a brand new sensor from Nikon, which has been specifically engineered for the Nikon D7000 and possibly other upcoming cameras. The Nikon D7000 is the second camera announced this year by Nikon with the new Expeed II processor, allowing faster image and video processing up to 1080p (the previous Expeed processor could not handle more than 720p video).

Here are some differences between Nikon D7000 and D300s:

  1. The first and the most important difference between the D7000 and D300s is the sensor. Nikon D7000 has a 16.2 Megapixel sensor, while the D300s has a 12.3 Megapixel sensor.
  2. The new sensor on the D7000 also has different specifications – its ISO range is from 100 too 6400 in native mode and up to 25,600 in expanded or “boost” mode, while D300s goes from ISO 200 to 3200 with a boost to ISO 6400, a difference of one full stop in native and two full stops in expanded mode.
  3. Base ISO on the Nikon D7000 is 100, while it is 200 for Nikon D300s.
  4. The new Expeed II processor on the Nikon D7000 is capable of full HD (1920x1080p) @ 24 fps (frames per second), while D300s can only go up to 720p (1280x720p) @ 24 fps. D7000 can also shoot 720p at 30, 25 and 24 fps and 424p at 30 and 25 fps; Nikon D300s only records video at 24 fps.
  5. Both cameras have magnesium alloy bodies, with the D7000 only having top and back covers made of magnesium alloy, while D300s is fully covered.
  6. Nikon D7000 comes with a new TTL exposure metering with 2016-pixel RGB sensor, while D300s has the older 1005-pixel RGB sensor.
  7. Both cameras employ dual slot storage systems for writing, but with different types of cards – Nikon D7000 uses dual SD card slots, while Nikon D300s uses Compact Flash and SD cards.
  8. Weight-wise, the Nikon D7000 is approximately 140 grams lighter than the D300s.
  9. Nikon D7000 shoots images at 6 fps, while D300s can shoot at 7 fps and can go up to 8 fps with the MB-D10 battery grip.
  10. Nikon D7000 can bracket up to 3 frames, while D300s can bracket up to 9 frames.
  11. Nkon D7000 is slightly smaller than the D300s, measuring 132x105x77mm versus 147x114x74mm of D300s.
  12. When it comes to AF system and focus points, the Nikon D300s has a superior pro-level AF sensor with 51 focus points and 15 cross-type sensors, while D7000 has 39 focus points and 9 cross-type sensors.
  13. Nikon D7000 has Scene Modes (such as Portrait, Landscape, Sports, Sunset, etc) to make it easier to take pictures for beginners, while the D300s does not.
  14. Nikon D7000 has a lot more White Balance options for more accurate WB control than D300s.
  15. Nikon D7000 is controlled remotely using MC-DC2 cable via the GPS socket, while D300s can be controlled with any Nikon 10-pin remote control unit.
  16. The price difference between the two cameras is significant – Nikon D7000 is priced at $1,199, while Nikon D300s is priced at $1,699 (although the current price is around $1,459).

So, in summary, which camera is superior? Clearly, it is the Nikon D7000. While Nikon D300s has a better AF system and a little faster frames per second, Nikon D7000 has the lead in the most important features such as sensor, ISO performance and video. The D7000 is also lighter, more compact and cheaper – at this time, it just does not make sense to buy the D300s anymore (unless you shoot action and you need the better AF system on the D300s).

Why did Nikon do this? Doesn’t the D7000 eat up D300s sales? Sure it does, but the wait between the next generation D300 line is short (D400 will most likely be announced early 2011) and Nikon can make plenty of money by selling the D7000 instead of the outdated D300s, which will be phased out as soon as the D400 comes out. D300 might be superior in its AF performance, but is it worth all new features the D7000 offers? I don’t think so…

Nikon D7000 is currently selling for approximately $1,199 for body only, whereas the D300s is selling for $1,459, so there is about a $260 difference.

See my full Nikon D7000 review.


  1. October 14, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Yahshi comparison beripsiz, man kak raz oylavotudim D7000 vs D300s. Omad slarga!

    • October 22, 2010 at 1:47 am

      Rahmat, sizga ham omad!

      • 1.1.1) Said G.
        July 6, 2011 at 10:56 pm

        Hi Nasim,
        This is a best, clear and simple comparison, like it very much. However, it has been a while since you made this comparison. What would you recommend as of now (July 2011) or what is the best DSLR on the market right now with a reasonable price? Because I am planning to switch from compact camera (canon powershot sd940 is) to DSLR sometime soon. Your recommendation, besides my own research, would help a lot. Thanks in advance.

        • QH
          May 25, 2012 at 10:52 am

          hi there after these reviews my mind stucked :(
          shall buy Nikon D7000 or not with Nikon 18-200mm lens ????
          or Nikon D300s is much better than D7000 ??? :'(

    • 1.2) ralph
      October 31, 2011 at 9:54 am

      Have you compared image quality between the older Nikon D3 and the D7000? Other than fps, buffer, which produces better overall images?

  2. October 15, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Thank you very much for the comparison. I will change my D5000 by this new D7000. :o)

    • October 22, 2010 at 1:47 am

      You are most welcome Liliana!

    • May 31, 2011 at 1:44 pm

      I’m selling my D5000. I rly loved this camera, but I want so bad the D7000. Thank you for the release.

      • 2.2.1) Joshua
        August 14, 2011 at 10:07 am

        I kept my D5000 for Set Photos and Upgraded to the D7000. It’s video is so beautiful.

        Here is a video we just did using it.

  3. 3) Michael
    October 15, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Hello Nasim!
    I think Nikon D7000 may shake APS-C sensor size camera market!

    • October 22, 2010 at 1:48 am

      Michael, it certainly will and already has, in a way! :)

  4. 4) dp
    October 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    hey! i think you got the number of AF points wrong for the two cameras – d300s is 51/15 while d7000 is 39/9, not 39/15 and 51/9

    • October 17, 2010 at 3:23 am

      DP, thanks so much for correcting me – I fixed the error! Not sure how I got it reversed like that, LOL :)

      • 4.1.1) PAG
        October 18, 2010 at 2:31 pm

        No worries. We all have our lysdexic moments.

  5. October 18, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Thanks, very clear comparison.

    However, I would also note the many dedicated buttons the D300s has. Personally, only because of that (minor difference) I wouldn’t switch “back”. Many buttons make it much easier (once you got used to them) to change important parameters.

    Maybe I’m a minority, but I don’t think I’m the only one who loves the buttons of the D300 (and D700/D3/etc.)

    • October 22, 2010 at 1:46 am

      Thank you for your feedback Arthur! Certainly very helpful info that I forgot to include!

    • 5.2) gfinlayson
      January 13, 2012 at 4:09 am

      I’ve used both the D700 and the D7000 extensively – the D700 has ‘more buttons’, but I’ve never found any of the D7000’s settings awkward to get to. One big plus is that the D7000 has the best impementation of AF settings control of any Nikon camera. You can select any AF mode and any configuration of focus points by pressing the centre button on the AF selector switch and choosing the modes with the command dials, all without taking your eye away from the viewfinder!

      I understand the new D4 has also adopted this configuration :-)

    • 5.3) dadskkie
      July 3, 2013 at 12:43 am

      I agree with you. I wish they put the same botoon layout as the d300

  6. 6) Emon Montero
    October 24, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Hi Nasim,

    I want ur advice, because i dont know what to buy between Nikon d7000 or Nikon d90 if i buy nikon d7000 i dnt have a money to buy a new lens, but if i buy d90 i can afford a new lens, i want to upgrade (my 1st DSLR is d5000) pls help..thanks in advanced…

    • 6.1) CHin Yun
      October 30, 2010 at 11:02 pm

      Hi, I’m giving my opinion. Not sure it’ll help.

      Get a decent lens first (18-55mm or 18-105mm). Actually, Nikon D7000 does comes with kit lens (18-105mm). It’s alot better compared to D90, even D300s in many ways.

      Hope this helps.

      • 6.1.1) Mon Montero
        November 3, 2010 at 6:31 am

        Thanks Chin, i think i go for Nikon D7000

    • November 17, 2010 at 1:00 pm

      Emon, I would certainly pick D7000 over D90…

      • 6.2.1) Ravi R
        December 26, 2011 at 6:08 pm


        I just ordered a Nikon refurb Nikon D7000 as i am guessing(hopefully) that many people returned it for focus issues. I thought it was a good deal to pass for a nice camera and i made the decision after reading your review. I have a Nikon D300 and i love its toughness and feel + the batt grip + remote etc…

        Now I am bummed that I have to go get all together a new grip, remote release, memory cards etc.

        But 1080p video and all new spec sensor and processor was an attraction… lets see how it works out.

      • 6.2.2) Ravi
        December 29, 2011 at 2:22 pm

        Got my D7000 today. While the battery was being charged, I looked at the camera and it felt good. More like my D70s but with a sturdy build quality. The D300 is still built like a tank.

        After the battery charged, I turned the camera on and took some pictures. One thing i immediately noticed is how the shutter mechanism is so different than any other camera. For one, i hardly lose the view in the viewfinder as it seems to raise and lower the mirror very fast and yet at the same time its very very quite. There is a definitive feel to the shutter as in “The picture has been taken” kinda feel. No mushy shutter release.

        This camera is built for manual lenses as well with their new focus indicator in the viewfinder.
        The picture quality is great. The exposure is a little bright as you(Naseem) pointed out but i kind of like it that way.

        The base ISO of this camera starts at 100 and this means its a super sensitive sensor.

        Not much to say other than these things.. will put it through a couple of manual lenses and video modes and see how i like. I already like it as its just like my D70s , light and sturdy and yet is packed with some of the latest technologies in terms of shutter release, mirror, processor etc…

        But I want to once again say that Naseem’s review sold me on it and i cant be happier.

  7. 7) Michael Rachkovsky
    October 25, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    Hi Nasim,

    I’ve just discovered your sight and I plan to study your photos.
    Thank you for the review. I have a q. for you: What about sharpness of D7000. I read that it is not as sharp as D90. Do you think it is possible? Or this was just a photographer’s error?


    • November 17, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      Michael, sharpness is a very relative term and it depends on many different factors, including the type of lens that was used in the test and how the focus was performed. I don’t believe the D7000 can be less sharp than the D90 in terms of pure sensor performance. There might be small differences in the way both cameras handle JPEG processing, but the RAW performance on the D7000 should be better.

  8. 8) Mayur
    October 28, 2010 at 2:49 am

    I have one question here. Lets say if the D300S price is same as D7000 then whats your say. Here in Sinagpore there is a deal going in which you get D300s in the same price as the upcoing D7000.
    I am actually kind of inclined towards buying D300s.
    Please give me sufficient reason to wait for D7000.
    I mostly click travel photographs with real time action.


    • November 17, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      Mayur, I personally would get the D7000, even if the price on the D300s was the same. Unless you photograph fast-moving subjects like birds, there is no reason to get the D300s.

      • 8.1.1) Bruce Randall
        December 5, 2011 at 10:29 pm

        I have a D700 and use the 300mm f/4 a lot for birding and i love the 8 frames per sec speed you get with the Nikon optional grip and battery.I get some great shots with this combo,but I long for the extra range using a crop camera to get it versus the very expensive alternative of buying a 600mm f/4 lens to achieve a very similar output with a difference of about $6,300. I have the 1.4 tele converter and with the same FPS with the 300s using the same optional grip and battery and the 1.5 crop factor I end up with very close to the same result for much less money. Using the same lens (300),optional grip/battery and 1.4 tele converter, I end up with a 630mm lens. The D7000 probably has better quality with the improved white balance,more powerful processor and improved sensor which would be excellent for just shooting general everyday pictures and even portraits,but for birding or action I think I definitely have to go with the D300s because of the all important FPS. I would only get blurry shots of flying birds with the slow FPS of the D7000. A shot isn’t worth anything to begin with if you can not make out what you are looking at, regardless of the little boost in quality of the D7000 and quality can be improved in RAW in Aperture3, easily anyway to make up for the shortcoming of the D300s versus the D7000 quality comparison. I would use my D700 which is excellent in quality for everything else especially landscape and portraits, so I would have the best of both worlds (pretty close). To me it makes a lot of cents and sense. Is anyone else in the same or similar boat?

        • Am-Expat
          January 7, 2012 at 4:04 pm

          How would a slower frame rate cause blurry images? That is a matter of focus and shutter speed. If anything the superior image quality at higher ISO of the D7000 will allow higher shutter speeds so LESS blur.
          The frame rate of the D300 series is faster only in the lower 12 bit data depth. In full 14 bit, like the D7000 the D7000 is 2.5 times as fast in rate.
          I have not found one parameter of the D300 in basic photographic principles to be superior to the D7000. For some types of action the MultiCAM 3500DX is better but not everything, particularly when the difference in higher res 3d RGB metering sensor comes into play. A better comparison to D300 is the D90 which had essentially the same IQ but a 1/2-1 stop more DR than the D300 at base ISO, which might be important to landscape shooters.

  9. October 29, 2010 at 3:17 am

    hello Nasim,

    First of all i would like to sincerely appreciate your efforts on your site. You have provided an immense information and various topics. The best part about your work is the simplicity in which you convey many topics which makes it so easy to understand. I feel lucky to have found your site!

    I would like to seek some advice from you about buying a new camera. Currently i am using a Nikon D5000, which i had purchased a year ago when i started my photography hobby. I planned to by D300S or a D700, however the D700 is somewhat out of my budget. Your topic on the difference between FX and DX made my life easier to understand the FX and DX.

    Please advice whether Nikon will launch new models in 2011 or i should purchase the D300S or the D700 (whatever suites my budget).

    Thanking you in anticipation.
    atif peshimam

    • 9.1) Rahul
      November 2, 2010 at 10:52 am

      I’m sure Nasim will give better advice, but what do you intend to shoot? There will be new models in 2011 , I expect a D5000 replacement and possible D300S replacement. Since budget is already a limit, a D700 is a tough call. Main advantage of FX is higher dynamic range and lower noise at high ISO. So FX is great for low light and/or fast action shooting; of course it’s better than DX otherwise as well. Only disadvantage with FX aside from price (both body and lenses) is that FX may have slower data transfer rate to from sensor to image processor. But most DX cameras aren’t out-shooting FX so it’s not so much of a difference.

    • November 17, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Thank you for your feedback Atif!

      I would personally go with the D700 versus D300s (I sold mine). However, Nikon will certainly have an update to the D700 next summer, so I would wait, if time is not an issue for you.

  10. 10) Rahul
    November 2, 2010 at 10:45 am

    hi Nasim,
    Nikon just announced its pricing for the D7000 in India, today. It’s a good INR 30000 or about $670 more than the D90. While I do wish I had more money to buy the D7000 (it’s not even available yet!), I guess my original choice ( the D90 which I just got today ) before the D7000 announcement will keep me pretty satisfied and occupied !

    PS : What do you recommend for RAW file processing, if you have used free/open source software? I have to check the provided ViewNX, but I remember reading comments saying it was lackluster, and ACR or Lightroom are way better.

    • November 17, 2010 at 1:08 pm

      Rahul, the D90 is a superb camera. Don’t worry about new cameras and upgrades and focus on learning and mastering your photography skills :)

      For RAW processing, Lightroom is the way to go – I cannot imagine working without it for a day!

  11. 11) David
    November 7, 2010 at 9:43 am

    You forgot to mention that the D300s has 51 focus points unlike the D7000, but the D7000 beats D300s because of tons of new features.

    • November 17, 2010 at 1:16 pm

      David, I did mention about 51 focus points “When it comes to AF system and focus points, the Nikon D300s has a superior pro-level AF sensor with 51 focus points and 15 cross-type sensors, while D7000 has 39 focus points and 9 cross-type sensors.”

  12. 12) Amartya
    November 13, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Hi Nasim and other friends,
    Based on various inputs, including Nasim’s, am planning to buy a D7000. But what lens should I buy with it – was thinking about NOT taking the 18-105 mm kit but going for the 18-200 mm VRII instead. My challenge w.r.t. lenses is that I shoot a variety of subjects from landscapes to people to wildlife + am passionate about travel photography, where it is not always possible to carry multiple lenses.
    Thanks in advance.

    • November 17, 2010 at 1:17 pm

      Amartya, if you can only shoot with one lens, the Nikon 18-200mm should do the trick…

      • 12.1.1) Amartya
        November 18, 2010 at 12:35 pm

        Nasim- greatly appreciate the prompt reply. Indeed it is a wonder, made possible by your generosity and technology, that an enthusiast sitting in Kolkata, India can learn from an expert sitting in Denver, USA. You make life better & simpler for so many of shutterbugs across the globe -shukriya!

        Am taking the liberty to ask you 3 allied questions:
        1) Considering that the 18-200mm will be used in versatile situations do you think I need a tripod or will the VR be good enough? If a tripod required, then would your share your suggestion pls?

        2) If in addition to my all purpose 18-200mm I were to also carry 1 other lens for the D7000 what should it be? Considering that a prime with bright aperture will be faster, enabling me to shoot better low light pics I was hoping that you may perhaps be kind enough to suggest something apt in the 35mm (52mm in DX) or 50mm (75 mm in DX) range? Or should it not be a prime but a wide angle zoom instead?

        3) Flash: what kind of flash would you pls suggest as an effective accessory with my D7000 and aforementioned lens? (NB: I did see that Ken Rockwell has recommended the SB-400 but I would rather have your objective opinion before making the purchase)

        PS: In case it is relevant for your response, I wanted you to kindly note that I am planning to upgrade to FX in about 2 to 3 yrs time.

        Awaiting your insightful reply & many thanks,

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          November 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm

          Amartya, you are most welcome!

          1) I would still suggest getting a tripod for night-time photography and other low-light work. I have a guide here on how to buy a tripod that I wrote a while ago.
          2) I would get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G as your second lens.
          3) I would get the SB-600 or better flash – SB-400 is not flexible enough.

          • Amartya
            November 18, 2010 at 11:14 pm

            Nasim – thanks for your replies, and the linked Tripod article was extremely useful too. Your interactive website is superb!!!

            One leading query your reply to pt (2) i.e. the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G being my second lens.
            This is a DX lens suitable for my D7000. As stated earlier, I am planning to upgrade to a full-format camera (Nikon FX) in about 2 to 3 yrs (must start saving now to get a D3s or its then equivalent!!!) I wanted to explore whether there is a goods lens that might be a fit with D7000 and also survive the migration to FX from DX as pure DX lenses are NOT recommended for use with FX.
            As my first lens, the 18-200mm, would anyway probably become unfit for FX I am thinking of having a second lens that will not loose its utility on migration to FX Grateful if you could kindly suggest a suitable option that is appropriate in terms of quality and value. (Or am I making a basic mistake in assuming a FX lens will work perfectly on a DX body like D7000?)

            Eagerly looking forward to your valued inputs,

            • AHC
              November 22, 2010 at 6:29 pm

              The question is, “what is your budget?”

              1. D7000,
              3. 14-24 f2.8
              2. 24-70 f2.8,
              3. 70-200 f2.8 vrII


              1. D7000
              2. 12-24mm f4 or Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 or 10.5 fisheye (sharpest thing i’ve seen on a DX)’
              3. 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 or 18-200 VRII or even 24-120 f4 VRII (FX)

              I still have my 10.5 for my D90 even when I have moved to FX, the first FX lens I bought for my D90 is 14-24mm and I nvr regret it one bit. This was before owning any FX DSLR.

              If you are getting a D7000 and already preparing to throw it away in 2 years for an FX, I wonder why bother getting a DX in the first place. Anyhow don’t worry so much about transition lenses, either way whether if you are going to keep your D7000 in 2 yrs time or sell them off, your DX lenses will still be of a use. You can re-sell your body with those DX lenses to mark up your overall value. And if you want to keep the body, well of course you get to use the lenses too.

              Worry about the lenses on your D3s or any FX camera in 2 years time. When you decide to get it.

              If you can afford a D3s or a D4 in that period then (I’m assuming you are hoping for a significant drop, although very unlikely) I am sure you can afford the lenses you want to have it with. It is almost pointless to get a FX without the lenses such as 24mm f1.4, 14-24, 300mm or any other exotics.

      • 12.1.2) Bruce Randall
        December 5, 2011 at 10:39 pm

        Definitely go with the 18-200.

  13. 13) ed
    November 13, 2010 at 7:06 am

    i am trying to choose between the nikon d7000 and canon 7d. nikon with 18-200 and canon with 18-135. any comments greatly appreciated.

    • November 17, 2010 at 1:19 pm

      Ed, both are equally good – just pick either one. I would personally recommend the D7000, but that’s because I shoot Nikon ;-)

  14. 14) Francis
    November 14, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Hi Nasim,

    Really enjoy your website it is very refreshing to see honest input on gear performance!

    What is your opinion on the D90 over a D7000 right now considering the good pricing being offered on the D90? I dont mind spending more for the 7000 If I fell there is enough of an upgrade there, but is it worth it considering the current price difference?

    My thought is to pick up a new D90 and see what else comes up in the next 6months to a year, and if nothing that significant shows I could always change over to the 7000 later and maybe not lose much in the process… What are your thoughts? If the improvement in camera is really worth it without a doubt I would buy now and maybe forget what might come up in the near future…



    • November 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm

      Francis, yes, there is a huge difference in pricing between D90 and D7000. However, if you do not have any budget constraints, I would still get the Nikon D7000 for several reasons: a) it will keep the value better, b) it is a superior camera and c) it is a higher class camera than D90.

      • 14.1.1) Francis
        November 17, 2010 at 1:46 pm

        Thanks for the advice!

  15. 15) Alexei Karam
    November 17, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Hi Nassim,

    Thanks a lot for the wealth of wonderful information you are providing on this website. Personally I am in love with photography since an early age and used to shoot B/W film with my Soviet Zenit camera and develop the pictures at home in Russia. As years went on I was very busy travelling and working all around the world, and btw I worked in AZ and lived in Baku for 2 years at the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline project, our offices were in Natavan building near Hyatt Hotel, your country is the most lovely of all countries I have visited, such good and nice people and such a beautiful and clean and safe city ! All this business kept me from venturing into DSLRs, I have owned more than 10 point and shoot cameras but now reached a point where I definitely need a dslr because I got enough of point and shoot and bad pictures.
    Currently I live in Lebanon and all my friends have Canon 40Ds and they are pushing me to get a Canon mainly a 60D or a 7D. I have been doing a lot of intensive reading over the past 2 – 3 weeks, my head is about to explode and for some reason I feel like going with Nikon D7000 and not with a Canon even though for some reason all my friends tell me that canon is better because you get a wider lens selection and at cheaper prices … personally I decided to get the Nikon 7000D with an 18-200 lens, later will get a 70-300 to expand my zooming capabilities and then will see, feel like I will also like to get something like a 10-24 and a 24-70 f2.8 but that will be later …
    What do you advise in regards to the Canon or Nikon issue ? and what do you think about my selection of lenses ??

    Again, thanks for all the help you are offering !

    • November 17, 2010 at 1:26 pm

      Alexei, thank you for your feedback and for sharing your experience!

      In terms of Nikon vs Canon, have you seen my “Nikon vs Canon vs Sony” article? At the end of the day, both Nikon and Canon have superb products. If all your friends shoot Canon, I would buy a Canon – that way you can learn from them and perhaps even borrow their lenses from time to time :)

      In terms of lenses, I am not a fan of a “one lens solution” like the 18-200mm. I would rather get the kit lens and a fast prime like the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G, which will give me better results and allow me to isolate my subjects better, rather than having the same old “point and shoot” type photographs…

  16. 16) jtsatman1
    November 18, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Hi Nassim,


    • November 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm

      Jtsatman, send your D80 to Nikon for repair if you have a focus issue. For choosing between D7000 and D300s, I would go for the D7000 since I believe it is better than the D300s, as I stated in this article.

  17. 17) Balaji
    November 22, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    Hi Nasim,

    Thanks a lot for your valuable inputs. From your article and all the comments, I am going for Nikon D7000 with 18-200 mm VRII (My subject of photography varies and its very general)

    Balaji M

    • 17.1) Balaji
      November 22, 2010 at 11:25 pm

      Question – If i would ask you, which lens you would go for,for an [All Occasion – All time] photo taking, what would you prefer.

      In my mind, i have 18-200mm and 35mm f/1.8G .


      • 17.1.1) AHC
        November 22, 2010 at 11:34 pm

        I will get a 300mm f2.8 vrII and 24mm f1.4G.. maybe I will throw in 70-200mm f2.8 VRII as well. Also the new 24-120mm f4 VRII for a walkaround lens.

        • Balaji
          November 22, 2010 at 11:43 pm

          Wow.. such a quick reply :) Thanks man..

          But you give too many options for a newbie :( – Budget is also a constraint. So If I don’t take 18-105mm lens which comes with the kit, which 1 lens would you go for.. All occasion (see, i am not even specific – I know all occasion/1 lens is absurd, but… I don’t know how to put it)

          1 Lens/affordable/All occasion :)

          • Rahul
            November 22, 2010 at 11:52 pm


            What kind of shooting do you intend to do? General does not explain much !
            The 18-200 VR will do fine for almost anything except low light and for wildlife/bird photography. If long zooms aren’t a high priority, the 18-105 will do fine as well.

            Lenses with high magnification are expensive as are those with wide apertures, so if you’re fine with the compromise of zoom and low light shots, the 18-200 is a fine one-lens-for-all-occasions. And if you don’t want to change lens much, the 18-200 is the only one besides the 28-300 .

            • Balaji
              November 23, 2010 at 12:00 am

              Rahul, Thanks for your reply.

              What Kind of Shooting – Mostly Wildlife/nature and I travel a lot.
              Long Zooms are a priority.

              I was actually determined to go for the 18-200mm until I saw the below link under the section called lens. Sorry for posting a link in this blog.

            • Rahul
              November 23, 2010 at 2:58 am

              Then the 55-300 DX or (better) 70-300 FX lens is more apt for wildlife shooting. Look up the price of 28-300 as well if it’s affordable to you, otherwise 70-300/55-300 along with 18-55 should cover your need better than 18-200 which you might find a little short on the telephoto end. Any thing longer than 300mm focal length, you have to shell out much more.

            • Balaji
              November 23, 2010 at 3:01 am

              Thank you very much Rahul.. That was good information! I go with your suggestion..

    • December 3, 2010 at 3:27 pm

      Balaji, sorry for a late reply. Looks like you are all taken care of, thanks to Rahul.

  18. 18) Iswan Malaysia
    November 25, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    thank you for a great info and easy to understand articles… The beginner will surely come back to read all your articles… i’m happy with my d90 now and i think it’s surely worth to upgrade my almost two years old camera, the existence of d7000 give me headache whether to choose d300s or d7000, but after reading your articles i think i’ll go for nikon d7000 even it’s lack at the focus point… but the other new upgrade function is way more better than d300s… in Malaysia this nikon d7000 is sold below Rm4,500 with kit lens 18-105… so i think i can get only the body (due to my old nikon d90 also come with the same lens)… but i won’t sell my d90 because this d90 keep giving me a good memories and a good profits… thanks and salam….

    • November 28, 2010 at 8:36 am

      Hi Iswan, i am from Malaysia KL too, just bought D7000 with Nikkor 17-55 2.8G lens, i travel to Bali with it and took a lot of photo with it, the image appear to be softer and i still not able to get a sharp image.
      Not sure what’s wrong with it, maybe is my skill. I google around and notice a lot of complaint about this issue. Still trying the learn as this is my 1st Nikon.

      • 18.1.1) Max
        November 30, 2010 at 2:37 am

        see my cooment no 53. D7000 delivered me softer pictures than the D300s in comparison.

      • December 3, 2010 at 3:29 pm

        Gan, I have heard about some bad samples of the D7000 out there that have a focus problem – you might have one from the same batch. I would test your D7000 and if it is faulty, send it back to Nikon.

    • December 3, 2010 at 3:28 pm

      Iswan, why upgrade to D7000 if you are happy with your D90? I personally would not upgrade from D90 to D7000 – better get a new lens if you have some extra $ now :)

  19. 19) Max
    November 30, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Hello mr. Mansurov

    Last week I bought a D7000 but today I will bring it back to the shop.

    In the weekend I did an comparison with my Nikon D300s wich was the clear winner for me.

    – pictures with D7000 are softer and less contrasty than those taken with the D300s.
    – ergonomics and feel of D300s are much better
    – autofocus of D300s seems to be more reliable (I cannot proof but with D7000 I had sometimes missfocus where the D300s had no problem at all, same lens, same light).

    • December 3, 2010 at 3:32 pm

      Max, looks like you are one of the few that have received a faulty D7000 with focus issues. I would send it back to Nikon or exchange yours for a new one as soon as possible.

      1) Pictures on the D7000 should not be softer (softness has to do with bad focus or a bad lens or both).
      2) I handled the D7000 in a store and it feels just as good as the D300s.
      3) AF on the D300s should be more reliable, because it has the same AF system as the D3/D3s/D3x pro-level cameras – that’s expected.

  20. 20) Max
    December 4, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Hello thanks for your answer,

    The D7000 I bought is returned already to the shop but it doesn’t matter because the D300s is an fantastic camera as well and I am happy with it.

    I think the difference in ergonomics is maybe a personal taste. My hands are pretty big and I wear glasses, it felt more comfortable with the D300s for sure.

    When I compared the pictures of the D300s with the D7000 I did not have the feeling the softness (although the difference with the d300s is subtle) was a lens or focus problem. I used the same lenses a 50mm AF-s 1.4 and a 35mm 1.8. I took the pictures in raw 14 bits at iso 400 with the same picture control standard. All noise reduction in both camera’s was switched of. I compared the photo’s on a professional Eizo calibrated monitor.

    I seemed to me that there is in the D7000 someting like a very small amount of “built in” noise reduction that you cannot switch off.

    When I gave the photo’s from the D300s in post production just a little bit noise reduction in Capture NX the results in sharpness seemed the same to me. Still the pictures from the D300s were a (little) bit more contrasty.

    For sure it is not a difference between day and night but but the IQ of the d300s felt more convincing to me. Maybe if I didn’t have a D300s already or when I did not compare that critical I would have been crazy happy with the IQ of the D7000.

    By the way, a more reliable autofocus system is for me also a big plus of the D300s.

    • 20.1) Rahul
      December 4, 2010 at 10:27 am

      I too think most of the time poor images are a matter of incorrect focus. Have you tried the D7000 with manual focus ?

      • 20.1.1) Max
        December 4, 2010 at 12:14 pm
        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          December 7, 2010 at 5:56 pm

          Max, I do not think the reviewer spent much time understanding exactly why he was getting soft images. In the image samples he posted, I believe there is a lens focusing issue.

          • Robert Bromfield
            January 27, 2011 at 8:36 am

            I disagree. Is it really possible to have that much focusing errors at 14mm, f8 and focused to infinity?
            If possible, could you please post some full resolution examples from your D7000?


            • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
              February 15, 2011 at 12:22 pm

              Robert, thanks for visiting my blog. Here is the link to the Nikon D7000 Review that I posted a couple of days ago, with full-size images.

              And when I talked about a “lens focusing issue”, it does not necessarily mean that you were focusing incorrectly – your lens sample might have had a backfocus issue too.

            • john symonds
              June 11, 2011 at 4:15 am

              I have both the D90 and the D7000 and I am disappointed with the D7000 by comparison the D90 is richer and sharper and I have good lenses

    • December 7, 2010 at 5:52 pm

      Max, I am glad that you are enjoying the D300s – it is a fantastic camera. In terms of image quality, there should be very minimal to none noise reduction at ISO 400 on the D7000… not sure why images came out that way. I know that some of the D7000 had some really bad focusing issues – maybe you had a bad sample?

    • 20.3) Nick Ballard
      May 23, 2011 at 7:29 am

      I note your point about:
      “… seemed to me that there is in the D7000 something like a very small amount of “built in” noise reduction that you cannot switch off.”
      That is my impression too – there is some default that produces a full dynamic-range to be output. which tends to over-saturate and over-expose and looks an image from a compact – and I often find it feels like I am fighting the camera to get the results I want. That is not the case with my D300; unforgiving, maybe, but reliable and accurate – you bet! Did I mention the AF…?
      Forget the D7000 if you are serious and get the D300s – you will not regret it

  21. 21) Max
    December 4, 2010 at 11:53 am

    No I did not test manual focus but the focus was not critical all the time.
    Maybe it has to do something with the software. We are talking about a camera that has more megapixels, better high iso’s and even higher dynamic range. I think the little softness I was talking about is the price for this. A little more sharpening and giving a bit more contrast will solve the problem but so far I trust my D300s more.

    • December 7, 2010 at 6:07 pm

      Max, a more proper test would be to use the camera’s Live View function to focus on a subject using AF or manual focus, if necessary. I believe some of the D7000 units out there have backfocus/front focus issues – check out some of the forum threads on

      • 21.1.1) Max
        December 8, 2010 at 2:35 am

        Hello Nasim,

        Thanks for your comments. I would like to do a more side by side comparisons between the D7000 and the D300s but my D7000 is already returned to the shop. If there is anybody that owns both camera’s I would love to see his comparison shots. I hope somebody will do a more scientific comparison one day, that will make everything clear.

  22. December 11, 2010 at 10:55 am
  23. December 12, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Another thing not mentioned in this review is that the D300s is laid out the same as the D700 (very similar to the D3 line up). If you’re a full frame shooter looking for a cropped sensor body the D300s is the obvious choice.
    Oh and the weather sealing is better on the D300s.

  24. December 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Hi Nasim. A very nice comparison of the D7000 and D300s. I shoot a D300 with a D200 backup, but will eventually be looking for a new prime body. I think that I will wait for the D400 since the D300 suits me just fine…and I do a lot of wildlife and bird shooting. I look forward to visiting other sections of your site.

    • January 5, 2011 at 5:18 pm

      Dave, yes, I would certainly recommend to wait until D400 comes out – it will be a world better than the D300 (given how good D7000 is).

  25. 25) Mary Grybko
    December 27, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Thanks for the wonderful write up of the two cameras. I am torn between both. I have the D80 and would like to upgrade to something else. I like the D7000 for the dual SD memory cards, the lighter weight of the two, low light capabiilty, and other features. I take mostly travel related photographs and sometimes indoor shots of Cathedrals (I use my Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens).

    You mentioned “…why upgrade to D7000 if you are happy with your D90? I personally would not upgrade from D90 to D7000…”

    Would you say my upgrade from my D80 is a significant upgrade? Any reviews I read it mentions the D90, never the D80.

    Lastly, you state, “…the Nikon D300s has a superior pro-level AF sensor with 51 focus points and 15 cross-type sensors, while D7000 has 39 focus points and 9 cross-type sensors. ”

    For the sensors, 39 focus points sounds like a lot. Is this sufficient for a travel photographer? I don’t do any sports shooting.

    Many thanks,


    • 25.1) Rahul
      December 27, 2010 at 10:11 pm

      I think the D7000 will suit you more given it’s better low light capability. The D80 is a generation old than D90, which replaced the D80, so you get comparisons between successive replacement models , not with one generation skipped as a D80 vs D7000 would be.

    • January 6, 2011 at 9:41 am

      Mary, yes, upgrading from D80 to D7000 would be a significant upgrade for you, since D80 is worse than D90. And don’t worry too much about the AF focus points – you would still get better results than with your D80 when it comes to AF performance.

  26. 26) Scott Wardwell
    December 27, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Hi Nasim,

    I enjoyed your comparison of the D300s to the D7000 as I was heavily leaning toward the D300s as the replacement body for my current D70s. Let me say right off, the D70s has proven itself an extremely capable camera and I have produced some of my best work to-date with it. However, it is a 5+ year old model and if I want to produce cleaner images for enlargement; I need to step it up to at least the 12mp level. Also I am experiencing amp noise or hot pixels in my long duration time exposures of over 1 minute of the night sky. My primary areas of interest are nature and landscapes. I live in Maine.

    Part of my justification for the D300s were the somewhat negative initial comments I was reading about the 7000s upon it’s release. Image quality and focus issues cropped up occasionally. I am not into video, so the 720 vs 1080 variable was not an issue. The delta on the price point was not a deal breaker for me as well. I am comfortable with spending an additional $300 for the right gear if needed. Ideally, I would make the move to the D700 if the budget allowed. And since I live in Maine that shares similar outdoor conditions like Colorado; the more robust camera appealed to me. I also have a good investment in CF cards and El-3e batteries which can be used in the D300s and I already have my lenses.

    You are quite passionate in your opinion of the D7000. Considering my concerns, should I take another look at it? Has Nikon cleared up some of these earlier issues?


    • 26.1) Rahul
      December 27, 2010 at 10:17 pm


      I think you should look up the D7000, the $300 price difference should get you a 2-3 spare batteries and SD cards too.

      Unless the D300S’ tougher build , higher lens compatibility and higher frame buffer (for bursts esp in RAW) are important to you ( which given you mainly shoot landscapes should not be so important ), the D7000 would be a better buy than the D300S. The newer sensor is noticeably better when it comes to noise performance and the higher resolution is useful for landscapes.

      • December 27, 2010 at 10:23 pm

        Why dont you cut the chase and wait for D400 which is going to have embedded battery grip like D3 (speculated).

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 10:01 am

          Deepak, I seriously doubt D400 is going to have the same body style as D3. It simply won’t happen.

      • 26.1.2) Ravi R
        December 26, 2011 at 6:15 pm


        What do you mean by “higher lens compatibility” in D300s that doesn’t exist in D7000?

        • Rahul
          December 28, 2011 at 8:57 am

          OK, turns out I was wrong, the D7000 apparently has the same compatibility levels as D300, so it is a new feature/upgrade for a D90-class replacement body.

    • January 6, 2011 at 10:00 am

      Scott, although amp noise is now almost completely eliminated in modern cameras, hot pixels are still an issue with most cameras. I personally don’t pay any attention to hot pixels, because I shoot everything in RAW and Lightroom/Photoshop automatically remove those for me. Even my high-end Nikon D3s has hot pixels at high ISOs and I don’t even bother looking for them :)

      Now in terms of Nikon D7000, I know that some of the cameras from early batches had problems, which is why I personally waited a little. I will be receiving my copy sometime next week and I will take it for a full test to shoot landscapes. A full review will be coming up within the next 3-4 weeks. One thing I will tell you though, if you are looking into D700 and your budget can stretch to an FX body, get one now! Seriously, no matter how good DX gets with these camera updates, FX is FX and the quality of images from an FX sensor is just another world. By the way, you can still take advantage of Nikon rebates – Nikon extended them to this month again and D700 is included. Or you can wait until I publish my review :)

  27. 27) digipix
    December 27, 2010 at 2:17 pm


    Thanks for the good review. Although I personally feel that the D300 takes better pictures than the D7000
    I base this on the example pix on the Nikon site. The images from the D7000 just do not have that “Oh wow ” to them. Just my opinion

    • 27.1) Max
      December 28, 2010 at 11:50 am

      I agree completely. I had both camera’s a short time side by side and I returned the D7000 and kept the D300s!

      • 27.1.1) Lauri
        December 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm

        I am moving up from the D60 which has a horrible auto focus system of 3 points. My plan was to get the D300s until the d7000 came out. I shoot mostly kids, candid shots and some dancing. I want great sharpness and already have the 24-70 2.8 which is a heavy lens. Some remarks have been to put the heavier lenses on the heavier cameras. When you had the d300s and d7000 side by side why did you choose the d300s? Do you feel it is still user friendly?

        • Max
          December 30, 2010 at 2:07 am

          Hello Lauri,

          If you want the best sharpness your 24-70mm is the most important factor but this lens is very heavy indeed. With normal size prints you will not see any difference in sharpness with cheaper good kitlenses.

          I found the image quality of the d300s better than the D7000. The d300s has better contast in the highlights wich makes your pictures look more punchy.

          For amateur use the combination of a D300s with a 24-70mm lens will be too heavy. You don’t want to have that hanging around your neck all day!

          Ergonomics and button lay out of the D300s are better than the D7000.

          I prefer the D90 (wich has the same image quality as the d300s) over the D7000 (I don’t need video). The D90 is very cheap now, with the money you save you can buy a 16-85mm lens (or other good kit lens, or even a prime) for daily use. Autofocus system of the d300s is still better. Here in the Netherlands now it is also easy to buy a used D300s in very good condition for a good price.

          If you are talking about weight the problem is more the lens than the camera. Difference in weight between the d300s and a d90 is someting like 200 grams, difference between a 24-70mm and a 16-85mm is something like 500 grams.

          • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
            January 6, 2011 at 10:11 am

            Max, I agree that D90 is a superb camera and I always recommend my readers to go with a lower-end body and invest in lenses instead.

          • phiolip
            February 4, 2012 at 10:22 pm

            hello, soliciting a sponsor for an SLR camera as I am unable to afford one….Am in bangalore, India

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 10:09 am

          Lauri, D7000 has a much better AF system than D60 and D300s has the same AF system as pro-level cameras like D3s/D3x.

      • 27.1.2) digipix
        December 30, 2010 at 5:49 pm

        I bounced this question off of Nikon Product support. The Reply I got was that the D300S has a higher IQ that the D7000. The D7000 benefits are 1080 HD video and higher ISO range. Also, I took a look at the backs of the D300S, D700 and D3. They operate the same way and have the same controls. A plus when you are considering pro cameras. No learning curve to have multiple camera layouts.

        Video in a SLR is not important to me. I have a camcorder. HD camcorders are far superior for cine than DSLR’s

        • Max
          December 31, 2010 at 1:03 am

          Intersting: the D90 has the same or even slightly better image quality than the D300s. This means speaking in terms of picture quality the D90 stands above the D7000!

          In the D7000 they pushed down the highlights t0 get higher dynamic range (good selling point) but the result is a flatter image.

          • Rahul
            January 1, 2011 at 1:15 am

            D300S has much better AF system, and getting quick & correct focus is a major factor is IQ. So under studio conditions the D90 might match the D300S, but in real world where low light and moving subjects demand accurate focusing, the D300S would win over the D90.

            The D7000 reportedly has a back focus issue, but the review site images I saw all have better images from the D7000 than the D90.

            • Max
              January 1, 2011 at 2:54 am

              Hello Rahul,

              Backfocus issue (the one that I tested did not have in my opinion) can be easily corrected by using the af fine tuning system. Back and front focus issues always depends on the combination of lens and body. Both have a margin out of factory but you can be unlucky with the combination. This is the case with any camera and lens combination.

              Less contast in the highlights (this happens if you want to increase the dynamic range within a limited sensor) results in less “bite” in your pictures. The D90 doesn’t have this issue.

              I wonder wich comparison site you saw, comparing D7000 and D90. I am mostly intersted in the results at lower iso’s.

              Don’t forget that not all reviewing sites are fully independend . These sites are very important for Nikon to sell their products. It is known that these sites and forums have a bigger commercial impact for camera facturers than normal advertising.

            • Rahul
              January 1, 2011 at 3:30 am

              hi Max,

              I mentioned the D7000 images being better so as to mean those samples didn’t have back-focus issue or the reviewer fine tuned AF to get the pictures proper, and better than with the D90.

              About dynamic range, regardless of DxO figures, it does look like D7000 does it better than D90, but I’ve seen no comparative same-scene HDR images so I’ll quit here.

              I saw same-scene ISO comparisons on imaging-resource , the D7000 looks better at high ISO , but not so much of difference at low ISO values. I’m all too aware of how advt budgets influence review outcomes (been reading lot of motorcycle reviews for long ! it’s not just cameras ) , that’s why I prefer sites where equal comparisons are made (though there is always some room to manipulate that via sharpening/contrast settings etc). For me budget won out, and I got the D90 and I would have to wait some weeks more for the D7000 to be available.

              So it seems you are convinced the D90 has better IQ, while I reckon the D7000 has better IQ :)
              Dynamic range aside, I’m sure the better AF system itself contributes a lot to D7000’s IQ over its predecessor sufficiently to counter higher pixel density, the rest looks like electronics & processing (NR algorithm) magic.

            • Max
              January 1, 2011 at 4:06 am

              Hi Rahul,

              Thanks for your answers. My tests were not scientific but the D7000 did not convince me. In direct comparison the D300s won for me because I liked the IQ better. I returned the D7000 and bought a used D90 in mint condition for a crazy low price. I am going to use this camera for a long photo-trip in Indonesia where I found the D300s too heavy and looking too professional (looking a bit too attractive for thieves and a bit too agressive for people that I want to take pictures of).

              I save a lot of money for a D700 (prices are going down nicely) although I am not yet convinced whether it is worth because I shoot mainly under 800 ISO and most photographers say in low light conditions you will not see a difference, I will rent a D700 and will find out the differences myself).

              But I stop the discussion now. In photography people often say, the quality of a picture depends for 70% on the photographer, 20 % on the lens and only 10% on the camera.

              If the difference between camera’s is so small that even freaks discuss it daily, what are we talking about?

            • Rahul
              January 1, 2011 at 5:56 am

              hi Max,

              Yeah the differences usually are small enough to pass, it’s only in direct comparisons ( side by side , same scene under same lighting ) that differences are notable. In isolation, we’d probably not nitpick at all. ( I do in case low light though)

          • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
            January 6, 2011 at 10:25 am

            Max, have you seen the DxOMark figures for D7000 vs D90/D300s? I will have a D7000 in my hands next week for some testing, but I highly doubt that D90 is better than D7000 in terms of image quality and contrast.

            • Max
              January 6, 2011 at 12:03 pm

              Hello Nasim, no I didn’t see the Dxo Mark figures for the D7000 (where to find them?). But what is better? I studied art and I have been a professional artist for over 25 years (visual arts and television). I learned to trust my own eyes more than any test. Is a kodak tri-X film worse than a 64 asa film because it has more grain? No but the character of the picture is very different. Something like this (to a very very small degree) was for me the difference between a D300s and a D7000. You cannot explain exactly what it is but there is a difference in the character of the pictures and I liked the D300s more (and probably the D90 as well because I think these camera’s are quit similar in terms of IQ). After this conclusion I got confirmed by Nikon and even experts like Thom Hogan (he wrote this “Well, first you need to learn some things. You’re not seeing fewer details, you’re seeing less contrast in the highlights. Exactly as you’d expect when you cram more dynamic range into the same space). I am not an expert at all but this is exactly what I felt, it makes your pictures look less “fresh”. What is more details or sharpness or dynamic range worth if the impression of the picture is less punchy? Anyway I will read your review with great interest and thanks a lot for all the worthfull information I found in your site!

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 10:22 am

          Digipix, D300s might have a higher IQ than D7000 if you consider the AF performance and a few other things. In terms of image quality and high ISO performance, the D7000 definitely surpasses the D300s. We will see a very similar sensor to D7000 on D400 when it comes out later this year.

          Now in terms of D300s having the same layout as D700/D3s/D3x, I personally have used all of these camera bodies and I don’t consider camera layout to be an advantage. When I tested D5000/D90/D3000 camera bodies, their different layouts did not present a problem for me and I was able to shoot with my cameras and lower-end cameras simultaneously without any problems. I’m surely spoiled by the pro-level Nikon AF system, but it is not like I had problems focusing with any of the lower-end bodies.

          Lastly, your statement “HD camcorders are far superior for cine than DSLR’s” is simply not true for one major reason – control of depth of field and ability to use different lenses. Would love to see you shoot this with an HD camcorder.

          • Ravi R
            December 26, 2011 at 6:19 pm

            While you are right about DSLR video’s having the option of switching lenses and depth of field, the pro camcorders use CCD instead of CMOS and don’t have the rolling shutter/jello effect when panning or shooting fast moving objects?

    • January 6, 2011 at 10:07 am

      Digipix, the “oh wow” factor depends on many things. I’m sure if you looked at images taken by a creative professional, you would have certainly agreed that the D7000 is a very good camera. D300s is better than D7000 in some ways, but image quality is NOT one of them. Take a look at the DxOMark figures and see where D7000 stands when compared to D300s as an example.

      • 27.2.1) Max
        January 6, 2011 at 11:10 am

        but Nasim, did you use and try the D7000 already intensively yourself? I have the feeling that your very positive opinion (from the first beginning), including image quality, is based on specifications, test rapports and information via the internet(but maybe I am wrong). Anyway I will read your upcoming review with interest, succes and thanks for your research.

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 10:17 pm

          Max, my opinion is based on a very quick test at the store and obviously specifications + image samples I have seen so far. I will do some rigorous testing with the D7000 and will let you know what I think about image quality.

  28. 28) JRob
    December 29, 2010 at 8:09 am

    This is my first post so I’m not sure this is the correct forum. First I must say Nasim that in my opinion you have the most informative site on digital photography. That is no insult to other sites but you have the ability to put things in laymen’s terms for amateur photographers like myself. I currently own a Nikon D40, Nikon AF 50mm 1.8, Nikon AF 55-200mm, Nikon 18-55mm and the SB-600. My long term goal is to become a professional photographer. I’m currently in the market for an upgrade from my D40. Do suggest I buy the D7000, D300s, or D700? I understand that a good lens is paramount. The good thing is that I have several years to save for prime lenses. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions.

    • 28.1) Rahul
      December 29, 2010 at 11:08 am


      If you’re aiming for professional photography , full-frame (D700) is the way to go. Some professional photographers do prefer crop sensor cameras like the D300S, specifically for wild-life/bird photography as the lenses get better reach , while almost everything else is better on full-frame. So you have to decide based on what is the majority of your shooting going to be (wild-life , landscape, architecture, studio, sports/action ).

      • 28.1.1) Lauri
        December 29, 2010 at 7:11 pm

        I am moving up from the D60 which has a horrible auto focus system of 3 points. My plan was to get the D300s until the d7000 came out. I shoot mostly kids, candid shots and some action/dance. I want great sharpness and already have the 24-70 2.8 which is a heavy lens. Some remarks have been to put the heavier lenses on the heavier cameras. When you had the d300s and d7000 side by side why did you choose the d300s? Would the d300s be a big jump from the d60?

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          January 6, 2011 at 10:37 am

          Lauri, either the D7000 or the D300s would be a big jump from the D60. Don’t worry about “heavier lenses on heavier cameras” statement – I used my 200-400mm on the D5000 camera body and it worked quite well. A heavier camera would surely balance better on your hands, but either the D7000 or the D300s would work equally well for this. I personally see no reason to use D300s – I would just go with the D7000. But that’s my opinion, and as you can see, some others prefer the D300s to D7000.

    • January 6, 2011 at 10:33 am

      JRob, if you want to become a professional and have the money, get a D700 like Rahul suggested. The image quality on FX is always superior than on DX and the difference is quite noticeable even at low ISOs below ISO 800 (more on that later in a separate article), especially in shadows. And you definitely need to invest in better pro-level glass.

      Nikon extended their rebates once again till the end of this month:

      So you might want to take advantage of their DSLR+lens offers. Specifically, I would look into D700 + 24-70mm + 70-200mm lenses – you will get $800 off if you get all three.

  29. 29) LOU
    January 11, 2011 at 11:41 pm


    All you get when you mount a heavy lens on a heavy camera is a heavier load to lug around. Don’t know if you made a purchasing decision, but the D300s is just a mildly updated D300, which is 3 1/2 year-old technology. Would you buy a computer that old and consider it new? The D7000 takes some of the best from the D90/D300 iteration and improves on both markedly.

    The D7000 represents the new-and-improved current Nikon course, and it’s SWEET! To be honest, it’s a tad overpriced vs. the new Canon D60, for example, but it’s still the ONLY Nikon DX I would consider at this point. It largely outperforms and out-specs the D300s: Improved AF, metering, megapixels, noise control and ISO range, AWB, programable features… you name it.

    I used a 24-70 on DX first, too. I always added the battery grip to a D200/D300, which created a more balanced lens/body package, albeit at a slight weight penalty overall. The same addition is available for the D7000, and I would try that route. It’s a smaller camera than the D300, but not too small, nor too light. I think you would love the 7000 upgrades. It represents a really nice advance from the D300 features & performance, and it’s light years beyond the D60 you’re using, as Nasim noted. Hope this helps.

  30. 30) Imani
    January 23, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Hi there :)
    I’m new to DSLRs but i want to upgrade from my Nikon Coolpix L110 for my birthday in two weeks. I want to get more serious with my photography and continue to pursue it. I’m not really worried about lens right now, but I was leaning on getting the d7000 because i’ve heard so many good things about it. I also know the d3100 is a good entry level camera but it’s not as serious. I have heard that the getting the d7000 now wouldn’t be a good choice because it would be too complicated for entry levels. But, I also hear that it would be a good choice for me because it’s a new camera and I would have time to grow into it before the next replacement comes along. What do you think?
    Thank you.

    • 30.1) Rahul
      January 24, 2011 at 4:11 am

      If the D7000’s price is not too high for you, get it over the D3100. The trouble with simple/basic DSLRs is that they will limit advanced usage via their reduced number of dedicated interfaces, but advanced DSLRs can be used in a simple point&shoot manner until you’re ready for manual selection, at least uptil the D90/D7000 level. The higher end models may reduce the number auto-modes, but they can be used in P&S mode anyway.

  31. 31) abe
    February 1, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    sir i just want to know what will happen if i reached the nikon’s actuation count on my nikon d7000? does it means that my camera is not good anymore? what is the best thing to do?

    • 31.1) Rahul
      February 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm

      No, nothing like that. Shutter count is just a statistical average of how long the shutter lasts on average.
      The shutter may fail much before that, or last much longer than that. Lot of people have shutter counts well above the published shutter life, even 2-3 times as much in some cases.

      If the shutter fails, you can get it replaced, it doesn’t mean your camera is useless when it happens. If under warranty period, it will be done under warranty, otherwise it can cost around 200-300 USD from figures I found off some forums.

      • 31.1.1) abe
        February 2, 2011 at 8:26 am

        tnx for the reply sir.

  32. February 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    The thing is I am thinking of going over to Nikon from Canon to improve autofocus in shooting runners and cyclists in dim early morning light so “the only advantage” of the d300s is the critical one for me. However, it seems the d7000 autofocus still has 39 total sensors including 9 cross-type which has to be pretty good — right? Has anyone done a comparison in real life situations to quantify how good the d7000 is, to compare it’s actual focusing performance against the d300s? Against the Canon 7D?

    • 32.1) Rahul
      February 4, 2011 at 10:28 am

      I don’t know how good the D7000 AF is against 7D or D300S – but the question is, what happens when the next gen of Canons turns out to have better AF than Nikon ? Unless you’re comfortable financially to switch brands back and forth (or keep both line-ups of bodies and lenses ), it’s a case of diminishing returns switching brands for relatively small gains. I’m sure the 7D AF is pretty good, the difference would be small fraction of second in decent lighting. Under very dark conditions, even full frames with fast lens have trouble getting correct focus, maybe barring the D3S.

      • 32.1.1) Randy Sherman
        March 7, 2011 at 2:44 am

        In actual comparisons using rental equipment I determined I am wasting my time and ruining my professiona reputation sticking with the Canon 7D. Following the prevelant advice in this blog I have traded my 7D on the 7000. There won’t be a running event for a few more weeks so I still don’t know if I made the good move or not — more about that later. However, I do not plan to jump back and forth between succesive generations of Canon vs Nikon. For now, assuming the 7000 is up to the task, I will be a “hybrid” photographer using the Nikon 7000 w/ 70-200 mm f2.8 VR II for sports and my Canon 5D Mk II w/ 16-35 f2.8 L II and 24-105 f4 L lenses for everything else.
        The reason I did NOT go with the 300s at this time is it is an older model by now (the “S” didn’t improve anything I care about) and the advice to wait for the 400 seemed sage. However, I feel the 7000 committs me to the FX format so I am actually waiting for the “800.” IF, the 700 replacement (or other DX model) comes out & I am super impressed and rich enough, I will trade everything to Nikon.

        • Ravi R
          December 26, 2011 at 6:23 pm

          I was looking at an EOS 7D myself, but I am not sure how the D7000 is better than the 7D. 7D has a brand new metering system and AF and it built like a tank like the D300 and above. Only caveat I guess is, it doesn’t Auto Focus in movie mode. If I wasn’t invested in Nikon lenses and gear I would have seriously looked at the EOS 7D. But now that you have made the decision, enjoy what you have.

          • Randy Sherman
            December 26, 2011 at 7:14 pm

            Well, I think I have explained my case carefully enough if one reads all the replies below.
            (Keep in mind my narrowly focused mission is to photograph runners approaching the finish line.) I will add more now, however. The serious limitation of the D7000’s pitifully small buffer has been a big disappointment — forget abt shooting RAW. The menu structure of any Nikon and especially the D7000 is horribly complicated and almost impossible to use and totally impossible to memorize. (Canon menus are kept short so no scrolling within any one menu is required whereas Nikon’s menus are as much as three pages long!) Another HUGE advantage of the 7D over the D7000 I miss nearly every time I pick up the Nikon is it can’t reflect the camera’s orientation in the active focusing spot selection. With the 7D I could set the “top” spot in either portrait or landscape mode and the camera would automatically switch as I switched from horizontal to vertical so I could easily focus on the head of an approaching runner in portrait and then the center head of a group of runners in landscape. With the Nikon I have to focus to the right of everyone in the group which never works so I can no longer take group shots! Even the control for selecting the focusing spot on the Nikon is poorly placed and more or less requires one to poke himself in the eye to manipulate! After reading all this one would wonder if I am still glad to have switched to Nikon. The answer is YES! However, when the Nikon “400” comes out, I will immediately trade up from the very inadequate D7000.

            • Ravi R
              December 26, 2011 at 7:52 pm

              In that case you should have just got the Nikon D300/s for its frame burst and AF. Yes i know you are waiting for the D400. But still the D300’s are plenty to be found for far much less with very less shutter actuation’s on e-bay. And I am still not clear with a requirement as yours, why you settled on the D7000.

              As for the Nikon’s menu’s its a double edged sword. It might be cumbersome, but it also means there is so much customization possible. And they provide 4 banks (2 in the D7000 with a dial) to store your most used settings for different situations. Plus “My Settings” makes it easy to recall your most used settings quickly.

              Moreover, if you have the camera for long then these menu’s become second nature and etched in your memory. I can close my eyes and set anything in my Nikon D70s as I have had it that long and one reason why I didn’t part with it( Apart from its flash sync speed). Constant camera change only makes it harder.

    • February 18, 2011 at 3:46 pm

      Randy, have you seen my Nikon D7000 Review yet? For your particular situation, I would recommend to go with the Nikon D300s or wait until D400 comes out this summer.

    • May 23, 2011 at 8:44 am

      I recently traded my Canon 7D & 70-200 f2.8L to Nikon 7000 w/ 70-200 f2.8 VRII. I now have 7000+ runner & cyclists images from the 7000 to compare to about 40,000 from the 7D. My conclusion is the 7000 gives a much higher percentage of great shots whereas I don’t believe I got even ONE great shot from the Canon 7D. However, I am still not getting the “fabulous” shots I dream of! To improve overall quality on the 7000 I have gone to much faster shutter speeds & smaller apertures (made possible by the superior high ISO performance of the 7000’s sensor) and this has made a big difference — I am now wondering if I should have tried this on the 7D? (I can always rent one to find out.) The other big reason for the high percentage of great shots with the 7000 is I no longer try for the extreme closeup as the runner or cyclist flashes by — I am learning they won’t buy images that show their nose hair, however razor sharp, anyway!
      To learn how much I am sacrificing to the “poor AF performance” of the 7000, I rent a Nikon D3s for important events. With the D3s I can follow the cyclist a bit closer but still not as they flash by. I can also shoot in much longer bursts, even in RAW compared to the 7000 which has serious buffer limitations (which I avoid by shooting in large JPG and using a fast writing SD card). My conclusion is the AF on the 7000 is “good enough” even compared to the D3s so I do not rue purchasing the 7000 over the 300s. To see my results goto

  33. 33) stian
    February 7, 2011 at 3:13 pm


    Nasim, what if they came out with the D400 right now, would you recomend it over the D7000?
    A bit odd question but im woundering of getting the D7000 now or if i should wait for the D400(if it comes:-)

    Thanks for the help.

    • February 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm

      Stian, you can rest assured that the Nikon D400 is going to be one hell of a camera :) And yes, I would recommend it over the D7000, because it is a pro-level camera like the D300s.

      Wait till D400 comes out!

  34. 34) Bob
    February 13, 2011 at 9:11 am


    Great web site and very informative! I have a D300 and shoot RAW exclusively, primarily for the better image quality and enhanced ability to modify images in Photoshop. Occasionally I will take photos of sports/action or political rallies that require a burst of speed, but I can’t say that I often find myself complaining about the buffer speed of the D300. I am considering a move to the D7000 but attempting to understand the practical differences of the buffer speed of the D7000 as it relates to my D300. Any good reference sites you or others can point to regarding buffer comparisons for RAW between the D7000 and D300 would be helpful.

    Many on, perhaps being a bit defensive about their D300/s models, are making quite a big deal about this buffer speed issue, as well as build quality of the D7000 not being on par with the D300/s. But I suspect the build quality is not quite as big of a deal, since as demonstrated here, even basic DSLRs are tougher than most suspect:

    I would consider waiting for the D400, but rumors seem to indicate an August announce date, which means that they won’t be in decent supply until November or so. Thus unless the buffer speed is a real killer issue, I may consider getting the D7000 and shooting with it for a year or so, since I suspect the D400 will use the same sensor, but improve AF speed, buffer rate, etc. – the issues that sports and photojournalists care about. Thanks in advance for any insights you have on this topic.


    • February 18, 2011 at 4:16 pm

      Bob, I watched the youtube video and it was hilarious, LOL!

      As for the D7000 downgrade, I would not do it if I were you, especially if you shoot in Continous mode on the D300. The buffer on the D7000 fills up after about 1.5-2 seconds (roughly 10 RAW files) and then the camera crawls to 1 FPS. Also, the AF in low-light on the D7000 is not as reliable. See my Nikon D7000 Review for more info.

  35. 35) Alan Ong
    February 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    hi there nasim, I’ve heard from other photographers who had bought the D7000 and they told me that the color of D7000’s pictures are not that superior against the D300s. they priority used the D7000 for the video than the still photos. what can you advise since i’m planning to buy the D300s.
    Yes, i have read almost every comment but not unless you address it to me then it would give me more impact to choose. thanks

    • February 18, 2011 at 4:20 pm

      Alan, I disagree about the color difference – it is simply not true (in my observations). I posted some full-size samples from the D7000 on the main page – check them out and let me know if you think the colors are not as good.

      If you need better AF and a faster camera (for continuous shooting), get the D300s. For everything else, the D7000 is a better DSLR.

  36. March 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm


    I am 99% of the time a sports photographer. I am currently using a Nikon D-90 with a Nikon 80-200 mm F/2.8 lens. From time to time, my lens was focusing on someone other than my main subject. Usually the crowd in the background. If the subject got too close, it might not focus fast enough or on the other hand, I have some fantastic pictures.

    I was told at my local camera store after they looked at some of my pictures, that I was not the problem It was the D-90 that could not keep up fast enough with the speed of the players and I will need to upgrade to a 300 series. I asked about the 7000 and was advised that it would still not be fast enough for what I need.

    She sounded very knowledgeble and honest, so one is this correct advice, but now I see that 400’s are coming out, so should I then just wait for that. I do this for a living and my business is starting to expand.

    Thanks for any advice.


    • 36.1) Bob
      March 5, 2011 at 8:17 pm

      What a coincidence – I shot my stepson’s basketball game this morning. I put the D7000 on autotracking and rarely missed a shot. I never ran into any buffer issues with my 16GB 30/MB/sec SDHC card, but then I was not holding the shutter down constantly, rather picking and choosing my shots. I used the Nikon 70-200mm VRII. The lighting was pretty lousy, as most gym lighting is, causing my photos to land in the 2400-3200 ISO range for the bulk of the shots. With some noise reduction and sharpening though, they looked pretty good. I wouldn’t blow them up to poster size, but would have no problem printing 8X10-sized photos.
      I was amazed how accurate the AF was, considering sometimes I was almost pushing straight down on the shutter with not much time for the camera to focus. Most of my shots were on a shutter speed of 320. Out of about 150 shots or so, I had a handful of misses, likely due to my own technique rather than a failure of the D7000 & 70-200mm VR II combination.
      You can indeed fill the buffer fairly quickly if you shoot in 14 Bit RAW on the D7000, when keeping the shutter depressed and firing off shots continuously, but you will do so on any camera. If you really need a camera that can take photos like a machine gun, I suspect you are into the D3s/D3X range. These full frame cameras will also give you much cleaner high ISO shots, something that is a not-so-insignificant advantage in poorly lit gyms with florescent lighting.
      I also suspect there are plenty of good sports photographers that could make a D7000 or D300s work just fine even with buffer speed limitations. IMHO, I believe many people make a bit too much out of the need to hold down the shutter button in a machine gun-like manner. With good shooting technique and knowing how to get the most out of your camera’s settings, I suspect that the D7000 or D300 would work well for you. You might even be better served by upgrading to the 70-200mm VR I or II lens which may focus a bit faster than your 80-200mm model.
      Hope this helps.

    • 36.2) Jeff
      April 13, 2011 at 8:59 am

      I think Bob hit the nail on the head with his lens comment. I too shoot sports / action photography almost exclusively and I believe your lens is also holding you back. I’m not sure what sports you’re shooting but the 80-200mm wouldn’t be my choice for Basketball, volleyball (any indoor sport for that matter) or any sport played outdoors at night / low light conditions. If you’re shooting baseball during the day / early evening in summer you should be fine as there’s little call to be tracking the subject in baseball. If you’re shooting football at night or basketball in a gymnasium with poor lighting, the 80-200mm will definitely show it’s flaws on almost ANY camera. I would recommend selling your 80-200mm for a nice shiny new 70-200mm VRII f/2.8 lens. Even with the D90 you will see immediate improvements to your shot. The technology is more than 10 years newer, that alone makes for better pictures. For indoor sports such as basketball, hockey and night shots for football or baseball I use my Nikon D700 and either my 70-200mm f/2.8 vr or my 300mm f/2.8 vr – you can’t beat the Full Frame sensor with a VR lens for the low light shots. Outdoors in good light I use my D300 and don’t find I have any problems getting the shot and often times will use my older AF 300mm f/4 lens, a very over looked but high quality lens in good light situations. It’s lighter and the photo quality is outstanding.

      Now, even with that I would still get rid of the D90 – it’s just not a very good camera for sports shooting. I have a Nikon D60 laying around that I use when I go take pictures of my nephews, stuff like that. I can occasionally get great shots with it but I wouldn’t rely on it to produce consistently in a sports environment – but it’s great for shots on swings!! The D7000 would most certainly be an upgrade with a vastly superior processor and ISO capabilities only equaled by Nikon’s line of Full Frame cameras (D700, D3x, D3s). Even the D300s is a huge upgrade from what you have but all things considered, it would make sense “at this time” to go with the D7000. When / if the D400 comes out, you may have a real choice to make then! Simplicity, ease and lower cost of the D7000 or expanded functionality and build quality that the newer D400 would certainly have (along with a price tag of close to $1,800 I’m sure).

      Good luck!

  37. 37) deb
    March 7, 2011 at 9:23 pm


    Thanks for the excellent review and the comments/suggestion from other readers are also very helpful for me. I have been using D40 for nearly two years. I am quite happy with that camera and in ideal condition it is good enough for a hobbyist like me. I was thinking about upgrading as I find the limitation in low-light and indoor. After reading lots of reviews and comments/suggestions about d90, d7000 and d300s, I think D90 (now in Japan it is about 100,000 yen with 18-200 vr lens) would suit me best, price and otherwise. D7000, D300s both are excellent camera no doubt, but I will probably not fully utilize the extra functions most of the times. So, it is probably a wastage for me. And the money I can save might be use for lens.
    Now, for me ‘which camera’ is not the question, it is more like ‘which lens(es)’.

    With D40, I have the 18-55 mm non-vr kit lens and a 55-200 vr lens. I normally take landscape, portrait and candid. So thinking about buying a wide-angle. Should I buy D90 body only and buy a WA, or buy the d90 with 18-200 vr-II for its conveniences. For wide angle, of course Nikon’s 14-24 mm is an excellent one. But its too costly for me. 10-24mm I can afford. How is Tokina 12-24mm? Its quite cheap compare to Nikon (of course), and review is also not bad. Or if you could suggest any other wide-angle at this range, would be very nice.


  38. 38) Viktor
    March 24, 2011 at 2:38 am


    wonderful review, thanks for that. I am thinking to buy my third DSLR and after few years not shooting I need your help, I love Nikon and I am thinking to buy D7000 or D300s, I mainly shoot still life, street photography, portraits and landscape, little macro. The problem is that I cant decide for which lens I should go. There is AF-S DX NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED and AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II first one is quite pricey but fast and good for portrait and bokeh, second one is good range coverage. I can afford only one lens this time so can you PLEASE help me to match my needs with body and lens??? Thank you in advance, I love your site.


    • 38.1) Rahul
      March 24, 2011 at 7:25 am

      Since this is your third DSLR, I suppose you might know already which kind of lens you need more- fast wide aperture ones or long zoom range. Do you have any other compatible lenses already ? For the mentioned shooting, a fast wide-angle-to-short-telephoto would be ideal.

      The 17-55 is priced around 75% more than 18-200. Look up the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, they’re less than half the cost as the Nikon 17-55. You can buy either the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma , along with any of Tamron 70-300 VC/Nikkor 55-300VR/Nikkor 70-300 VR for less than the price of Nikkor 17-55 alone.

    • 38.2) Jeff
      April 13, 2011 at 9:17 am

      Viktor, It would help to also know what body you currently have. Quite frankly, I didn’t see anything in the types of photography that you do that would call for an upgrade to a D7000 or a D300s. You don’t need HD video to shoot a landscape or need 7fps to shoot still life!

      If you have a newer camera that relies solely on the AF-S Nikon lenses you have fewer choices. I’m not sure the 18-200mm lens is the lens for you. You can get the same coverage with the Nikon kit lenses 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR for half the cost and only have the inconvenience of having to change lenses occasionally. The 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens but costly. For about $700-$800 less you can get the Nikon 16-35mm F/4 VR lens which would be great for landscapes, still life, street scenes…not so great for portrait.

      If you have a D80, D100, D200 etc. that can use Nikon’s older AF lenses you have a lot more options! You don’t get VR but you can make adjustments where you would hardly notice not having it. For these camera’s you might consider buying a Nikon AF-D 35-70mm f/2.8 lens. Optically it is very good and it fits the budget too! A copy of this lens can be had used for about $300-$400 and if you’re lucky to find a new copy it isn’t that much more, maybe $500. A pro quality lens such as this coupled with any nikon camera that allows its use will give you stunning results!

  39. 39) David
    April 8, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Hi Nasim,
    Great website! I have a D7000 and wanted to ask your opinion on the 16-85 and 18-200 lens. Currently I have an 18-200. I also have an old (1995) 80-200 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.8. Compared to these the 18-200 is a little soft, particularly at 200. I understand that this is to be expected to some degree. It’s great for snaps around town, but it’s noticeably different if I’m really trying to get a nice shot.

    I have read elsewhere that the softness of the lens will be more amplified in a 16 mp camera. Therefore my question is whether, in your opinion, this is true and whether the 16-85 will give a noticeably sharper result?

    • April 26, 2011 at 3:24 pm

      David, yes, it is expected that the 18-200mm is a little softer on the long end. As for 16-85mm, it is a different type of a lens, so it is not an apples to apples comparison against the 18-200mm. Will the 16-85mm be sharper than 18-200mm between 18-85mm? Absolutely! And yes, you will see more softness with a 16 MP camera when viewed at 100%…

  40. 40) Vern Rogers
    April 23, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    I read your review of the Nikon D7000 thoroughly as I was interested in comparing it with the D300s. Your review showed that the D300s would be the better choice for some photographers, such as wildlife, sports, etc. You also referred to the incompatible battery and grip, etc. I appreciated this honest comparison, even though the review was of the D7000. Then in your comparison article, you failed to mention most of those key differences which led me to conclude that the D300s might be the best choice for me. I have both D3 and D700, and would like one DX body to go along with them. I like the similarities in construction, focusing capabilities, compatibilities and other areas where the D300s may well be a better choice.

    I use an 80-400 VR with my FX bodies, with which it performs very well indeed and is one of my most used lenses. I am concerned about using the big long lenses on the D7000 and its plastic front. Wouldn’t the D300s be a tougher body in this case? Also, I have been learning that the bigger, heavier body is a plus when using the bigger, longer lenses.

    Also, I don’t recall you mentioning that the D7000 is more particular with lenses. Some buyers have found that the lenses they have do not show the same quality results when used with the higher resolution D7000.

    And I have read about other circumstances that would indicate that there are users who would be better fitted getting the D300s over the D7000. This was indicated in your D7000 review but a lot of it seemed to be overlooked in your D7000 vs D300s article. I really didn’t get near as much out of that article to help me with a decision when comparing the two cameras as I did from your D7000 review.

    After much reading and comparing and based on what models I now have and use, I am concluding that the D300s would be a better fit for me. 1 stop higher ISO for acceptable noise isn’t that big a thing to me. The higher resolution would be nice, but in reality it takes a bigger jump in resolution than 33%. From what I have read over the years resolution almost needs to be doubled to show a big difference with the naked eye.

    I was disappointed with your second article which just seemed to be jumping on the bandwagon. I know the D7000 is a superb camera, another great addition to Nikon’s lineup. It’s great features are what makes choosing between models more difficult. But your article makes it appear that the fine D300/D300s, very recently acclaimed models, are suddenly obsolete.

    I can get a D300s for $130 more than a D7000. I have researched your articles and those of others and am beginning to conclude that for me and my type of photography, which the D3 and D700, which have many features in common with the D300s have, suggest that a D300s would be a better fit and do a better job.

    Thanks for all of your efforts. I do enjoy your articles, and feel that your D7000 review article spelled it all out clearly. It verified some of the things I have been concerned about are valid concerns and showed that both cameras have a lot to offer. I just think you dismissed the D300s to quickly in the second article which should have included the important points found in the first.

    Thanks for hearing me out,


    • April 26, 2011 at 3:20 pm

      Vern, my Nikon D7000 review was posted long after I wrote this article, which is why some things were missed :) If you need the AF performance of the D300s, go for it, especially if it is for sports/birds/action.

  41. 41) Dustin Ike
    May 1, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Hi Nasim, I am just a beginner with my D60. I am planning to take the next step by choosing a higher-end camera. I read your review about the D7000 and D300s and i feel like going to the D7000. I have some questions if you don’t mind. (1) which is faster in saving pictures, the CF or the SD card? (2) does the 18-200mm VRII gives professional looking photos? i mean in respect to sharpness, color… (3) here in Bahrain, the price of the D300s and D7000 body is not so different, should I really need to buy the D7000? thank you so much and hope to learn from you more. God bless!

    • May 1, 2011 at 10:41 am

      Dustin, there are different types of CF and SD cards and their speeds vary. CF is generally the standard for higher-end cameras and therefore the speed of the fastest CF cards and reliability is better than SD. As for 18-200mm lens, I personally don’t like it. It will never give you the same results as prime and shorter focal length lenses. If you don’t shoot sports or other fast action, go for the D7000.

      • 41.1.1) Dustin Ike
        May 1, 2011 at 10:04 pm

        Thank you so much Nasim, you have cleared my doubts away! I will be buying the D7000 this week and if the budget permits, will also buy a prime lens… should I also go for an external flash like the SB-700?

  42. 42) peter
    May 3, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Hi Nasim…I am choosing between D300s and D7000 … I read everything here in “D7000 vs D300s” and “D7000 review”, but I still made not a decision. I am starting as weddingsphotographer (last year I was photographing with D90) and now I want upgrade my gear. Sure will be it better to photograph with FX camera, but it is too expensive… also if you have time to write yous opinion, I will be very happy…
    thanks, peter

  43. 43) Leo King
    May 4, 2011 at 5:49 am

    I wanted to to compare how the two cameras (d300s and d7000) focus in the dark with focus assist light. I setup three different objects in the dark room and used Nikon 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 VR II on both cameras. Nikon d300s took between 1 and 2 seconds to acquire a dead-on focus on all three subjects. D7000 could not focus at all on any of the objects. It was hunting until the viewfinder would turn off and i would try again and again, but no luck. I just got the d7000 and was going to sell my d300s, but after this im keeping the d300s and i will sell the d7k

  44. 44) Alexei Karam
    May 5, 2011 at 7:40 am

    I love my D7000 but there is 1 thing that got me disappointed and I started thinking of buying the D400 as soon as it is released to replace the D7000. I just got started with HDR photography and found out that the D7000 is capable of bracketing a max. of 3 shots with 2eV max difference between them. This is only useful in about 20% of HDR photography and normally for most good HDR shots you need 5 or 9 exposures (5 shots with 2eV difference for a -4 to +4 range or 9 shots with 1eV difference for a -4 to +4 range)
    The D300s , D200 and all high end models are capable of auto bracketing 9 shots whereas the D7000 has this feature truncated by firmware !

    I also have a question regarding the multiple exposure function built into the D7000, if you read the description of it in the manual page 152, it is very vague, it is not clear what is the EV difference between the shots ! What do they mean by auto gain is on or off and how do you choose the amount of gain ? … I tried it and got poor results, is it some kind of in-camera HDR ?

  45. 45) Nick Ballard
    May 23, 2011 at 6:42 am

    My main DSLR use is in wildlife – where AF function is vital, as there is often only one chance. On my D300 the AF is rock-solid, finds and locks well; with the D7000 is miss too many shots because the AF does hunts and does not lock. My feeling is – if you want the DSLR-equivalent of a compact camera – go for the D7000. If you want a work-horse DSLR where everything works as you want it or expect it, get a D300(s).

  46. 46) Sandra
    June 10, 2011 at 4:37 am

    This comparison is great! With the d7000 do I have to use AF-S lenses vs regular AF? I currently have the d90 and always have to pay more for lenses. I would rather buy the AF models.

    • 46.1) Rahul
      June 10, 2011 at 9:22 am

      Both the D7000 and D90 can autofocus with AF lenses, AF-S lenses are not strictly required.

      • 46.1.1) Sven Vdb
        August 17, 2011 at 10:53 am

        A friend of me was going to buy a nikon D7000 but didn’t do it because his Sigma Macro 105 mm does not work with the D7000!!!

        Nikon has changed something at the comptability i think.

  47. 47) Betty
    June 16, 2011 at 10:22 am

    I have been in taking pictures since 1976 with different Nikon cameras, so I guess I would consider myself a serious photographer, without being paid. Recently I noticed that my eyes can’t focus without using Auto focus. I photograph mainly Action (watersports: Kayaking, surfing etc.) micro (Butterflies, bees etc.), wildlife and landscapes. Which Nikon camera do you recommend based on my eyes limitatios a 300 or 7000? I plan on also purchasing a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Lens, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II and a Nikon TC-20E III. Any suggestions would be helpful with lens or Cameras.

    Thank you

  48. 48) Benedict
    June 27, 2011 at 6:37 am

    Hi Nasim,

    Thanks for the review!!! I find it very informative and full of substance. I am an emerging photographer and it has always been my passion way back but budget was so scarce that I waited for the right moment. BTW because of your strong recommendation I will definitely get the D7000 for I was halfhearted about it. Would you be kind enough and try to check my photos and please do comment with all honesty no holds barred so I can see the areas of improvements. Please I would appreciate if you’d be commenting coming from a professional photographer. Here’s the link:

    Thanks in advance!!!!!

  49. 49) Benedict
    June 27, 2011 at 6:42 am

    and also do you know a great software to make a presentation? Imovie seemed to lose the quality of the picture and a bit wabbly… thanks again! i thought i saw you in youtube with your wife explaining about how to use camera flash?

  50. 50) Michael
    June 28, 2011 at 5:55 am

    Is there a comparison between the D5100 and the D7000 ?

    What does the world recommend?

    • 50.1) Benedict Salvacion
      July 2, 2011 at 7:57 pm

      go for d7000 there was a good review done in youtube about it…

  51. 51) Charlie
    July 17, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Hi, this is such a great site with wonderful tips and advice, I’m really impressed.

    I am currently looking at both of these Nikon cameras. I need a camera for sports photography specifically mountain biking and snowboarding. It needs to be robust and weather proof, as well as quick. I was set on the D300s but having read a few reviews the d7000 seems to come out as a better all round camera.

    I’m not sure that the 7fps and 51 Focus points is enough to warrant the extra £200.

    I do already have a SB900 flash so the new camera needs to work to it’s full potential as well. My current camera wont go above 1/200 shutter speed when shooting with the flash attached, which is an annoying work around!

    Any sport photography advice would be great.


    • August 24, 2011 at 11:40 pm

      Charlie, for sport photography needs, the D300s would be a better choice due to better AF.

  52. 52) Mark
    July 28, 2011 at 7:43 am

    The review seems to be from someone who is a beginner at photography.

    They missed some critical differences:

    1 – Because of the smaller size, the D7000 is missing the critical AF-ON button that is on all the professional sized models like the D300s. Since it lacks the superior focusing capabilities of D300s, they are clearly targeting the consumers as with the other smaller ‘000 models like the D3000 and D5000. The D7000 can only be used by people who keep the focus tied to the shutter like a point and shoot camera, unless you want to give up the AE-L functionality. People who shoot with the advanced focusing capabilities of the flagship DX model could not even use the D7000.

    2 – Also the smaller size makes it impossible to hold comfortably, and it does not balance well with the pro glass.

    3 – The buffer size is much larger in the D300s, making the 8fps speed amazingly superior to the consumer D7000. It doesn’t matter how fast you can shoot if the buffer cannot handle it.

    4 – The bracketing is superior on the D300s.

    There is no comparison … The D300s is a professional size, the most expensive, and still the flagship DX model. The D7000 is a good camera and the top consumer ‘000 model, and good for video, but no match for the D300s.

    Yes, if you are a general consumer and don’t need the advanced features of the D300s you should get the lower model. That doesn’t make it better than the D300s, it means you don’t need the better one.

    • August 24, 2011 at 11:39 pm

      Mark, have you actually used the D7000? I don’t mind swapping the AE-L button to AF-ON when needed – it is really not that big of a deal, at least for me. And I shoot with D700 and D3s bodies. Where did you get “people who shoot with the advanced focusing capabilities of the flagship DX model could not even use the D7000″ from? Online forums? I used both and while the AF system on the D300s is superior, the D7000 works perfectly well for most photography needs.

      The size and weight difference between the D300s and D7000 is not that significant, so I do not agree with your “pro glass does not balance well on the D7000″ argument. If you need the additional weight, you can always add the new MB-D11 grip for more balance.

      The buffer size depends on whether you shoot 12-bit or 14-bit RAW. Try shooting 14-bit RAW on both and you will see that the D7000 is faster. You can only get 8 FPS on the D300s if you use alkaline batteries or the EN-EL4a battery with a BL-3 chamber cover.

      I find 3 frame bracketing on the D7000 to be sufficient for most photography needs. Plus, you can specify the brackets to be +2 EV steps apart.

      The only case where I would consider the D300s over D7000, is if I solely shot wildlife or sports – that’s where the D300s is better. In every other way, the D7000 takes the lead.

      • 52.1.1) Am-Expat
        January 13, 2012 at 7:30 am

        To amplify these comments a bit: The statement that th buffer is larger on the D300s is an internet rumor. Comparing apples to oranges, with one of the fruit being much larger files with more detail and tone data when shooting in their fastest modes. But the modes are not equivalent. The d7000 in 14 bit mode moves a lot more data into and out of the buffer than the small 12 bit 12mpx datastream of the D300s. Not many owners of the D300s shot in 14 bit because the buffer and the frame rate becomes v..e…r..y slow. Try shooting both in the same mode, 14 and rendering in JPG and see just home many shots in a burst you can get from either. In 14 bit raw, which is the mode D7000 use because of its greater quality, the D7000 needed more buffer memory just to keep up with the D300s in 12 bit due to file size alone. When shooting in 14 bit on both cameras, the D7000 is still handling a lot more data of very welcome fine detail and tone data.

        The red-herring about frame rate is often used by beginners who read too many forums. Hi frame rates is not the demand of pros, it is used occassionally but with the knowledge that only the first shot is likely to be in focus if the subject is moving out of the center of the focal plane. The blackout time prevents optimum AF detection between frames at a high rate. When a pro sports shooter has to get the shot lower FPS or single is used because their main skill brought to the task is not having expensive gear, it is skill in leading the action by intimate knowledge of the movements and characteristics of the play. A good shooter, in single frame is more likely to get the peak desired action than a spray-n-pray technique. Some sports are pretty predictable such as ski jumping, baseball in most plays such as the pitch and swing, or auto racing where a lot of shooters even use MF to stake out an interesting turn. A skilled nature photographer knows the normal behavior of the animals they stalk, and know how one will react to changes in their environment. Even cultural performance shooters such as ballet, have no problem with leading the action…there is a script and no move is catching the skilled photographer unaware. Rock and jazz is even more predictable for those who really know their subject well. Find a successful animal photographer and I will so you a person skilled in animal behavior and psychology, even more than superior photographer. They are probably highly skilled photographers also but the thing that sets them apart with consistently optimum results is the former. If it would be enough to just buy expensive gear, than everyone with a credit card would be getting compelling images, or buying expensive oils and brushes would produce worthwhile paintings.

        Have you really tested the difference between a D7000 at 6fps versus a 7 fps D300 or even one with a higher voltage battery and grip at 8fps? I have to question the subject knowledge more than camera capability when one is considered acceptable and the other is not. That is a technique problem not a camera problem. Experience and subject study takes care of that.

        This is a topic that needs to be explored more. The art of photography is very different than what most people who are interested in gear expect it to be. Any camera out now or in the last 150 years is capable of art and has been used to illuminate the world to billions of people whose lives would be a little grayer and less emotionally compelling if artist with cameras had not done what they have. It was NEVER the gear. Spend more time learning and observing your subjects and human perception and less time stressing about gear or features and your photographs will be more interesting for other people to see.

  53. 53) Fouad
    August 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    So ….. it is Nikon D7000 ??

  54. 54) Angelette
    August 7, 2011 at 6:20 am

    By reading the Q & A, am I properly assuming that if I want to shoot things such as live fire and running water, the D300s should be my choice? I will be shooting in those type of environments obviously, and in low light also. I have time, so should I wait and hope the D400 will suit my needs? I am not interested in shooting video that the D7000 boasts of.

    • August 7, 2011 at 12:43 pm

      I would wait until Nikon announces the new camera later this month…

      • 54.1.1) Fouad
        August 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm

        any news about it ??? cos I will get the D7000 few days , so should I wait ??? am not planing to pay more than 1500$ .

        please advise ASAP

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          August 7, 2011 at 1:28 pm

          Fouad, no need to wait, because the upcoming DSLRs will be more than 1500 for sure.

  55. August 17, 2011 at 11:12 am

    i didn’t know yet wich body i was going to by, the D300s or the D7000. I have already read lots of reviews and forums about making the choise.
    With this review its clear for me!

    I need a Nikon D300s. I think I’m not going to wait for the D400 (or something else) because i would cost to much for me i think.

    Would the successor of the D300s much different properties have? Would it be something like D7000?


    • August 24, 2011 at 11:17 pm

      Sven, the D300s successor should be a much better camera. I would wait for another month for a potential announcement from Nikon.

      • 55.1.1) Ajis
        March 29, 2012 at 1:33 pm

        Hi Nasim..
        I got a 50D canon But no I would like to go for nikon .. but i don’t know with one best finally ..
        D300s or 7000? pls could anyone reply me pls….

  56. 56) Hisham Akhtar
    August 18, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    Thanks so much for this review! It definitely helped and reiterated a lot of the views I had when looking at both cameras. Good stuff!

  57. 57) nikon d300s
    August 21, 2011 at 9:21 am

    thank you,
    this is very informative before I buy a D300s.

  58. 58) Alexei Karam
    August 21, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Today I was disappointed with my D7000, I was attending the MAKS2011 International Air and Space Saloon in Moscow and there was light to moderate rain all day and of course the camera was exposed to all this rain allthe time. Half through the day it started acting weird where Live View would automatically without me touching anything switch on then off most of the times preventing me from taking photos. I was sad and instantly I understood the benefits of a totally sealed camera like the D300s. Now after I dried the camera with paper towels and gave it a blow of warm air with a hairdryer it is back to normal operation, but
    What I will do now after what I experienced today, I will be selling my D7000 the moment the D400 is released and will definitely go for a D400.

    • August 24, 2011 at 11:16 pm

      Alexei, even the higher end camera bodies like D300s might act up in moderate rain. Your best bet is to put a cover over your camera when it rains. Something like the Op/Tech Rainsleeve would work the magic.

  59. 59) oksana
    August 27, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Thank you for comparison! It clearly helped me make up my mind of not buying d300s..Thank you again!

  60. 60) Allen
    August 28, 2011 at 4:08 am

    The rave reviews I read proved to be incorrect. Everything about this camera is slow including the editing program that came with it. Endless scrolling though the menu to get to things like the horizon leveller, and it like everything else will disappear after 10 seconds. The screen is always blank. The digital display seems like a waste of space. The slowness of the shot taking may be attributed to the cheap lens. However it is a Nikon lens. It is only recently bought, the quality of the photos may be it saving grace. Given the choice again, I would have bought a Canon.

  61. 61) steve
    August 29, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    This is just a spec sheet comparison, do some actual photography with both cameras and I think you’ll be surprised how well the D300 holds its own regarding image quality, it’s superior low pass filter makrs a big difference.

  62. 62) Allen
    August 29, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    I bought a D7000 and was immediately disappointed with it’s slowness both the camera and the editing program which was exceptionally slow to make adjustments. The screen on the back goes blank after 10 seconds whether its a picture or camera information. Really annoying, I cannot fathom why Nikon would do this.
    Miles of scrolling through the menu to get to things. One of these was the Horizon checker, wonderful feature but will never be used, pictures are there to taken instantly. The Horizon checker should be there all the time. It of course it endlessly turns itself off. Again, Nikon what were you thinking, this is awful.
    I bought it to replace the Sony A550 which gave poor portrait colours with a flash. Could not fix this problem. Apart from this the Sony was a far better camera. I have not had the Nikon long enough to see what the portrait picture quality is really like.
    Given the choice again I would have bought a Canon.
    I bought this camera on reviews and reputation and was left wondering how they were so good.

  63. 63) Nazmi
    September 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Hi i need your advice. i have d300 now and i just think to sell it and get d7000. im taking portrait and sunset photograps to couples. i have 18-200 vr and 70-200 2.8 vr lenses it will work much better at d7000 i think.

  64. 64) Hunor
    September 6, 2011 at 12:56 am

    I would never compare d7000 with d300s…the d300s is a well known and tested and used camera by proffesional photographers…it depends on the scale the camera is used…if you want a profesional camera then go and by a d300s…if not, than the d7000 it’s ok…i also heard form d7000 users that they had some problems with this new sensor (after a few thousand pics they noticed some oil/vaseline spots on the sensor) and this is true, you can find it on other forums too. Final notice… buy d300s!!!

    • 64.1) Hunor
      September 6, 2011 at 1:00 am

      Sorry, one more comment….if you want to compare the d300s than compare it with the d700…you will go next level…the level of full frame!!!

      • 64.1.1) Pavel
        December 19, 2011 at 1:41 am

        Very true.
        I believe if you can understand how good a regular D300 is, than your shots will prove themselves. It makes me sad when people get caught with new and shiny objects when they haven’t mastered the amazing one in front of them.

  65. 65) ariff
    September 23, 2011 at 8:33 am

    hi, Nasim..
    i was wondering whether to upgrade my 60d to 7d or just change everything for the d7000?
    your respond would be much appreciated.

  66. 66) Dave
    November 13, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    I thin I am going to buy an Fujifilm X100 and wait to see what Nikon comes out with (if anything) in the next 6 months. I do not like the feel of the D7000 and think that the D300s is overpriced. If nothing new comes out I am going with Canon.

  67. 67) Inas
    November 15, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    Hi all……am intending to shift from d90 to d7000….. Do u think its going to be a good move….

  68. 68) AJ
    November 25, 2011 at 12:26 am

    I think such comparisons on paper specs should only take it with a pinch of salt. Should have a picture quality comparisons between these 2 cameras. Ultimately, it’s the end result that matters most.
    Remember that the D300s is by no means worse than D7000. D300s is marketed to the pro consumers with full magnesium body case but not in the D7000.
    Also, higher ISO capability does not equals to better picture quality. For a 12.3 mega pixels raw format is good enough for larger than A3 prints, unless you’re talking about printing in say 6 by 8 feet even the 16 mega pixels of the D7000 wouldn’t be able to handle it.

    It’s best to test out both cameras, see for yourself which camera you are more comfortable with. Nikon market D7000 in between the D90 and D300s for a reason.

    Just my 2 cents.

  69. 69) omer farooq
    December 9, 2011 at 3:55 am

    i have d300s and i have also shoot with d7000 in camera shop i find d300s have better image quality using same lense 70-200. but its just what i see. go and check in any shop and shoot with both camera you will clearly see a difference. d300s clearly got better image quality may be because better AF system. also pro camera donot necessary means high specs it means you can use and abuse that camera for years without getting any complaint out of it.

    • 69.1) Am-Expat
      January 13, 2012 at 6:52 am

      I am afraid you may have been a victim of your test procedure. I have never heard anyone voice the opinion, after viewing D7000 files on a calibrated monitor and proper rendering software, that the D300s produces superior images. I have never found that to be the case in my own use of both and the d90. Testing by the rear display can trick you because it is not the raw file, it is a JPG rendering that is influenced by the Picture Control and other settings of the camera. It is a well known fact that the default sharpening on D7000 JPG in-camera rendering is set to very low and it begs to be set higher, say +6 in PC. RAW files however, which are not seen by the in-camera preview, at 14 bit have more data depth, higher resolution, usually better metering and better WB than the the D300s. Note that most people set the data width of the D300s to 12bit in order to get fast frame rates. It it very slow in 14 bit, the preferred data width, 2.5fps vs. 6fps for the D7000 14 bit.
      Testing in the store would only reveal the true capability of either camera if the characteristics of both are well known and setting made to be compatible. There are too many uncontrolled to variables to draw any valid conclusions if you don’t set them both up to their optimum settings.

      • 69.1.1) omer farooq
        January 15, 2012 at 5:23 am

        may be you are right. but please try both cameras at one time on one subject. check the results. its quite easy, go to any camera shop and test it. and i have already told in my last comment that pro body doesn’t mean better image quality its durability, compatibility and ergonomics.

  70. 70) Pavel
    December 19, 2011 at 1:33 am

    One thing – the D7000 cannot support an AIS lens. Those photographers that feel this is important should realize the limitations and choose accordingly. Also I’ve seen so many beautiful photographs shot with older body’s than even a D300 – and so maybe we should ask ourselves what makes a better shot, the body or us?

    • 70.1) Ravi R
      December 26, 2011 at 6:35 pm

      If the D7000 can support an AI lens, what stops it from supporting an AIS lens?

      • 70.1.1) Pavel
        January 5, 2012 at 10:51 pm

        Absolutely nothing, I made a mistake. Yes you can use an AI / AIS lens on the D7000. My Bad.

        • ajis
          April 16, 2012 at 3:23 pm

          Im Danny recently i got D7000 I’m little confuse in right lenses for wedding photography with D7000 Could anyone tips me pls..

  71. 71) Don
    March 3, 2012 at 10:25 pm

    I’d really like to see a comparison between the D7000 and the D700, if you think that fair? I realize the D700 is FX, but I still would very much like to see and hear what you think. I’ve already put my order in for the D800 the day it was announced by Nikon. However like my D7000, and have taken what I believe to be incredible photos with it. But I might be just a wee bit prejudice. :^)
    So if you are as curious as I am, and feel like taking a look at that, let me know what you think?
    Thanks, and I love your website, as I’m sure everybody whose seen it does as well. Lots of good information, not to mention the great photos you’ve shared with us all. Keep up the good work.
    Best regards

  72. 72) bibhu
    March 18, 2012 at 12:59 am

    i have a nikon d 80 i think i sold a 7000 . some one say me that it is the best camera i buy ?

  73. 73) Am-Expat
    March 18, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Currently, I really doubt there is a better Dx, crop sensor camera out that takes better images. From my own experience, the greatest benefit is for lower ISO shooters, such as studio and landscape where the superior dynamic range really is hard to underestimate how much it impacts image quality.
    I plan on getting a FX camera soon, but will continue shooting with the D7000 because is is a great solution for some, many, needs.
    I suspect the common reports on this blog about in-store tests revealed the D300s as being better was due almost entirely with the bit greater demands placed on technique when using the D7000. It has a steeper learning path but those who can shake their bad habits, will be greatly rewarded.
    For anyone buying such an advanced camera, who does not have a good grounding in the fundamentals of photography, light and color, should invest a little in books or a workshop or two. Books on the model are not so important but study about the fundamentals that are applicable for any camera, film or digital. One I recommend for beginners is Understanding Exposure by Bryon Peterson.
    As far as learning the camera is concerned, just read the manual that comes with the D7000 and you will be prepared for getting a lot out of it.

  74. 74) john carvill
    March 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Wow. Read this review and was taking it seriously until I realised that the reviewer hasn’t actually tested the D7000, just played with it briefly in a shop. Yet he unequivocally recommends it!

    Believe me, if you have medium or large hands, don’t buy a D7000 without testing it: it’s absolutely tiny, feels far less robust than a D70.

  75. 75) Am-Expat
    March 27, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    I take it you have not used the D7000 John. As it turns out the reviewer was spot on, and recommends what has turned out to be recognized as the best DX camera available today. It low noise at base ISO is the standard which engineers in Nikon attempted to duplicate in the new D800 and succeeded with the same linear noise plot still has the D7000 as the DR king of crop cameras. Getting anything else in crop sensor cameras gives up a lot of image quality performance needlessly.

    Your assessment of the D7000 being “Tiny” is relative but in this case it is a less than a 1/3 of an inch difference in width and essentially the same in other dimensions as the D70. The D7000 is stronger, with more dense construction with many more features yet only weighs 18% more than the old D70.

    Yours was the very first comment I have ever read suggesting that the D7000 was not rugged or robust. The magnesium case prevents it from being a lot heavier than it is while giving it strength and durability. The most time/action limited life part of any camera is the shutter mechanism and the D7000’s shutter is spec’d at 150,000 frames

    Mounting a grip on it, the combination is one of the best balanced and finest handling DX cameras ever made. It balances perfectly with the 70-200 2.8. Try one, you might really like it.

  76. 76) John Quinones
    March 27, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    Hello Nasim,
    I’ve read your review and have learned a lot from it. I have daughters that play soccer and feel that I am ready to take the next step into purchasing a great camera. I’ve heard a lot of good reviews about the D7000 but would it be the wise decision for shooting sports? If so, what lens would be the best to use? Any help is greatly appreciated. John

  77. 77) john carvill
    March 28, 2012 at 1:15 am

    You’re right: I had not tried it. When I did, I realised it wasn’t for me, no matter how impressive its spec.

    I agree, it almost certainly is more robust than the D70, but it doesn’t feel that way. The killer drawback for me was the size, and particularly the unsuitability, for me, of the shallow grip, which meant it was uncomfortable and awkward to hold; this, combined with other factors, meant I had difficulty holding the D7000 steady. So I would not have been getting the best out of it, in terms of image quality . (And I’m not even factoring in the back focusing problems or the oil on sensor nightmare).

    The guy who runs this site seems professional and knowledgeable, and comes across as a decent guy. But I think he jumped the gun a bit here by declaring a camera he’d only played with in a shop to be ‘clearly better’ than the D300s.

  78. 78) Ajis
    March 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    Hi …
    Could anyone tell me pls..
    i got 50D canon but now i would like go for nikon but don’t know which one is best in nikon..
    D300s or D7000? someone says D7000 is good someone says D300s…

  79. 79) Am-Expat
    March 29, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    Ajis, are there specific reasons you wish to switch from the 50D? It is a good camera that for most subjects would deliver images that were high quality, just like the D7000 and D300s.
    Each of these cameras has strengths and weaknesses but currently the one with the fewest weaknesses of all crop sensor cameras is the D7000. But the strengths of one of the others might be more important to you due to your subject matter and conditions of where you will be shooting.
    For example if your main goal was tracking small birds in flight, you might find the D300s’ auto-focus system better for that, or for action sports. For almost any other sort of scenes I think you would get better results with a D7000, or even a D5100 which has the same sensor as the D7000 but a lower price and a few less options for adjustment. If videos are a priority, the D5100 is a very good choice.

    Getting back to the original question; why would you like to switch? Are you missing some shots that you think is due to the camera? Is the quality of the images not not good enough? If yes to these, either the camera needs servicing by Canon or because you need to learn more about how to match the capabilities of the camera to the scene. For example if you are shooting indoors in low light, for subjects that are moving, adding a flash and learning to use it well will make more improvement than getting a new camera.
    Give us more information about what is and is not working out for you now.

    • 79.1) Ajis
      March 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm

      Am-Expat Thank you for the fast reply!!!
      My main goal is for small parties and holidays. when i use my 50D in party.. some photos getting
      very noise.. its even can’t adjust in lightroom!! and main thing I’m just new comer for DSLR.
      my first one 50D. I’ve taken photography course. but still getting noise .. someone says for
      beginners Nikon is best for learn so i gonna keep my 50D and looking for Nikon!!

      I mean when i take a photo in a party hall some photos coming good but when move my camera
      to different place in a same hall comes noise..
      When i move to different place what should i do with canon to get a good quality?
      I’m just mad for cameras but i feel bad coz.. of my bad photos.what you thing Am-Expat pls..

  80. 80) Am-Expat
    March 30, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Hello Ajis
    Noise is going to be a problem with any camera if the light is not sufficient to get proper exposure. Many newer camera handle low light better but the real solution is to increase the amount and quality of light. If you are not using an external flash, the most effective tool, with the biggest return on investment is not lenses or high end cameras but modest cost lighting, such as the Canon 580 flash that works well with the 50d. Many people, particularly beginners avoid flash because they do not like what they term the “flash look” which typically for your parties is overly bright faces and dark shadows behind the subject. That is due entirely to not knowing how to use it well. In reality, almost all the images they have admired in commercial, fine art or portraiture used some sort of photographer controlled light….studio strobes or compact flash units but done in such a way that it is not apparent that any were used.
    Getting and learning how to use an external flash unit will extend your photography, with all your lenses and current camera, more than any other single purchase or accessory.
    I shoot parties, primarily in dance clubs, where light it terrible, with fog machines, lasers, black matte ceilings and yet with one or more external flash units, the images are quite good, where the subjects often say they are the best photos ever take of them. It is not hard to learn the basic because it really goes to the heart of photography: light, color and shadow.
    I would recommend a book to begin with, which is not even about flash but exposure. It is an easy to read and understand book without math or much technical detail. It’s Byron Peterson’s “Understanding Exposure” Everything concerning photography is based on some basic concepts that are covered. It will apply to indoor, outdoor, candid, formal…any type of photography.
    Good luck and have fun….the 50D is a fine camera but you have to feed it quality light…like any other camera.

  81. 81) Ajis
    March 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Great And Thanks .. Am-expat,
    I’ll try and will spent more time with my 50D.

  82. 82) Danny
    April 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Im Danny recently i got D7000 I’m little confuse in right lenses for wedding photography with D7000 Could anyone tips me pls..

  83. April 29, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    thanks for comparison. it is really informative.

  84. 84) Magic
    May 18, 2012 at 7:39 am

    The D7000 cameras is the best DX format camera ever made.
    thats what the say on the net and I have just ordered one :o)

  85. 85) Magic
    May 18, 2012 at 7:40 am

    The D7000 camera is the best DX format camera ever made.
    thats what the say on the net and I have just ordered one :o)

  86. 86) QH
    May 25, 2012 at 10:54 am

    hi there after these reviews my mind stucked :@
    shall buy Nikon D7000 or not with Nikon 18-200mm lens ???
    or Nikon D300s is much better than D7000 ??? :'(

  87. 87) Ashan Ali
    May 26, 2012 at 1:41 am

    what the fcuk is that :@
    dont tell me the difference just let me know which one is LEGEND ?
    which one is All Rounder ???
    Please Please Please…………

  88. 88) Magic
    May 26, 2012 at 2:35 am

    Ashan Ali Saheb,

    Go with D7000 :o)

  89. 89) Ashan Ali
    May 26, 2012 at 8:44 am

    Magic Bhai is it Awesome ?
    i have seen feedbacks here talking about something OIL leaking :(
    is that true ?
    im A Poor Man can’t afford this
    but still Love D7000, is there any honest person here about Nikon d7000 ?

  90. 90) Magic
    May 26, 2012 at 9:13 am

    @Ashan Ali
    yeah I heard about oil issue, but it was with the first few models.
    I have ordered D7000 too, waiting for it.
    Trust me yaar its the best camera in its class and hard to beat.

    You can see some reviews on youtube.

    • 90.1) Am-Expat
      May 28, 2012 at 3:03 pm

      There have been a few with a motor bearing seal failed. There is no lube or oil in the mirror box but the motor(one of 3) outside the mirror box on the failed motors flung oil onto the sensor even though there is no direct path. Those that did fail, did so soon after put into operation from new. Apparently it was a isolated batch of motors from their supplier. If it did happen, it would occur well within the warranty period and would be taken care of for free. I never met anyone with that problem however.
      I have a D7000 and a D800, they are in the same large camera backpack and are good mates for each other but I am getting such a kick out of the D800 that the trusty and much loved D7000 does not get the attention it used to. I keep a 70-200 2.8 on the D7000 and a 24 1.4 or 24-70 2.8 on the D800.

  91. 91) kEITH
    May 28, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    I am trying to make a decision between the Nikon D300s and the Nikon D7000. I had my mind set on the D300S and I started reading about the D7000. Which of the two is the better camer.

  92. 92) MetalBis
    May 31, 2012 at 4:40 am

    I tested both cameras since Im wondering which one to get – just got my attention on the authors summary and let me not agree with it
    “So, in summary, which camera is superior? Clearly, it is the Nikon D7000. While Nikon D300s has a better AF system and a little faster frames per second,
    it just does not make sense to buy the D300s anymore (unless you shoot action and you need the better AF system on the D300s).”

    the last sentence became very interesting to me – what a logic…
    Isnt actually the better AF system and faster frames a reason to still want to buy D300s…? what if someone wants to be wildlife photographer? I do shoot in soccer matches for example – D300s has more advantages for this – D7000 can do good job too – but the advantage is that it does only have good image quality at higher ISO and thats all

    what about using your images for print – in the D7000 the good image quality goes in the raw – the jpeg is realy slightly soft – while D300s has more advantage there – dont diss one camera over the new D7000 – they two are just other classes of cameras

    “Why did Nikon do this? Doesn’t the D7000 eat up D300s sales? ”
    No because of the different classes of cameras should be there on the market for different types of photographers and different preferences

    “Sure it does, but the wait between the next generation D300 line is short (D400 will most likely be announced early 2011) and Nikon can make plenty of money by selling the D7000 instead of the outdated D300s, which will be phased out as soon as the D400 comes out. D300 might be superior in its AF performance, but is it worth all new features the D7000 offers? I don’t think so…”

    D400 like D800 might be too expensive and D300s that eventually will be discounted – still will be good affordable dslr in 2012. Plus I prefer not to watch what more people buy – because in some forums i read of complains about oil spills for instance – D300s hasnt showed such problems – its realy disappointing – you get the top advertised D7000 for $1200-$1300 and after some 100+ shot you have to take it to service cause of oil and dust – only this reason makes me to prefer the much more stable and heavier D300s

    • 92.1) Am-Expat
      June 1, 2012 at 3:55 am

      Some misconceptions are repeated in your message. For some wildlife shooters, and some sports there might be an advantage with AF tracking for the D300 but the MultiCAM 4800DX is very good in its own right, just different.
      ALL other image related factors…color, AWB, low ISO( noise several stops better), lack of artifacts(such as the sky noise the D300s is famous for), wider DR at all ISO, higher resolution, meter metering, any other image related factor one can think of, is better on the D7000 than the D300s. A better comparison would be between a D90 and D300s which share very similar imaging performance except the D90 has 1/2 stop wider DR at low ISO and less noise at high ISO.
      The claim that JPGs are soft is strange, the rendering engine is adjustable and simply increasing the default rather conservative sharpness setting gives sharper, higher detailed images in JPG as well as the naturally higher detail and sharpness of the 16mpx, finer pitched pixels of the d7000.
      It is one thing to prefer a camera one is used to, that is fine but it is disinformation to make claims that just are not true about the technical and operational characteristics of a camera based on those biases.
      The D300s is discontinued anyway 5 months ago although there are some still available new.

      So right now, the D7000 is the top of the line in Dx crop Nikon’s. It killed sales of the D300s with many pros carrying the newer model as their second camera behind their D700, D3s, D4 or D800. Even the controls on the D7000 are closer to those on the D800 and D4 than D300s.

  93. 93) Asim siddiqui
    July 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Thanks for your advice, inshallah I will buy soon D7000 because it’s choice of a new generation with new features

  94. 94) Berhane
    July 8, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    Hi, I know this site is focusing on Nikon. I’m interested inCanon or Sony and I have been doing research for sometimes now but couldn’t decide. Rebel T3i, 60D, or NEX7? Help.

  95. 95) Brent
    July 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    I have a D90 butwould like to upgrade to something that will give me more control, quality and durability.

    Specifically, here’s what I want:
    -primarily a photographic, not videographic, camera; if it includes video, it must have an external stereo audio jack. 1080p is NOT required; 720p is sufficient for my needs.
    -separate buttons for AF-On, AE-L (Hold) and Shutter, plus a FN button for spot-metering. This works out to 4 buttons.
    -low noise ISO 100 sensor for printing pictures up to a maximum 24″x36″ on canvas, for example.
    -fast shutter speeds
    -weather sealing
    -mirror lockup
    -fast autofocus with 51 focus points and 15 cross hair points.
    -bigger size to fit my large hand, or have an optional grip
    -able to shoot ISO 1600 reasonably cleanly.

    I am willing to buy used, and would prefer to spend under $1000.

    I have 3 FX (2 fast primes and 1 slow zoom) lenses and 2 DX (1 fast prime and 1 slow zoom) lenses, so am not truly committed to either format.

    My photographic subjects are primarily landscapes and family pics (gymnasium, dramas, birthday parties, eetc.)

    What do you and the others on this forum suggest? I am not in a hurry.


  96. 96) Tim Behuniak
    September 5, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Hi Nasim,
    I currently have a Nikon D40. It is not enough for my needs, MP size, viewfinder (I’d like it to be 100%), and not having controls on body gets aggrivating sometimes (like metering and DOF preview button). Now, after two years with the D40, I find that I’m fairly experienced, as I shoot everyday, and I’m also all caught up with all the photography “lingo”, I mainly shoot in Manual, A or S, sometimes P. I don’t know if I should grab the D7000, the D300(s) or the D700. I know the D700 is amazing and I truly want it, but I would also be happy with the high-end DX D7000 or D300(s). The D700 is also a little out of my price range, and the FX lenses are too. Which too you think I should get? Thank you so much in advance for your feedback, and great job on the website, I read it all the time!

  97. 97) Am-Expat
    September 5, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Hi Tim,
    What do you shoot most or do you have any specialties that have particular requirements?
    I ask because each of the cameras you are considering have some strengths the other do not. You should decide if you are going to view this purchase as the first step in a potentially very expensive shift in funding requirements. You have AF-S lenses now that are suitable for either the D300 or D7000 but not for the D700 or soon to be announced D600. The least expensive aspect of moving to FX is an FX body, and the real expense is in the lenses.
    As a general purpose camera that does everything well the D7000 is currently the best in IQ, features and price. If you are primarily interested in sport, outdoors, the D300s has an advantage in speed and sophistication of the auto -focusing system(which is shared in base system with the D700. A used D300s is a bargain now but still more than the new lower new price for the D7000 at $999.
    The D700 is an excellent general purpose Fx camera with the build quality of the D300 but better IQ and low light performance. Used D700’s are about $1800 but the real costs are upgrading to Fx lenses.
    A new model that will probably be announced in a couple weeks is rumored to be 24mp FX in the same body type at the D7000, meaning smaller, lighter and an outer shell of a mix of plastic and magnesium. That latter point probably is not important to you since the D7000 style body is plenty rugged without having a 100% metal outer shell.

    • 97.1) Tim Behuniak
      September 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm

      Thanks for the feedback. I mainly do nature photography (wildlife, landscapes, macro, etc.). I do shoot in low-light occasionally, which I know the D700 is very excellent in. But, I know the other DX bodies I’m looking into shoot well in low-light conditions also, obviously not as good as the D700, but still pretty good. I do have DX AF-S lenses, but not enough that I could sell to have a major spike in my budget for a D700. I would really love a D700, but I’m not thoroughly convinced I should save longer to purchase it, considering the high price of the lenses. I may wait for the new FX camera, but only purchase it if it’s worth it, after I see reviews and pick one up in a store. Between the D7000 and D300, which would you purchase and what type of shooting do you do? But for all three, for me, I guess time will tell.

      • 97.1.1) Am-Expat
        September 8, 2012 at 11:22 pm

        Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been in 3 countries since I wrote last.
        As I mentioned the shift to FX is a major commitment to lenses if you have need for a wide range of focal lengths. The camera body is not the significant factor in comparison. There is a sudden shift towards Fx by a lot of hobbyists who really do not benefit that much from it. Printing very large, and needing very narrow depth of field are the two major advantages.
        Narrow DOF is mostly of interest to serious portraiture. That was my main interest in adding a D800 to my bag. Low light is a benefit also but not as significant as most people assume. The D7000 has that covered really well.
        Considering the alignment of my lens selection to accommodate FX really cost about $11,000 in addition to the body and I do not do macro or use long lenses. That is probably typical for Fx shooters. That is a big dent in my budget and probably yours as well. So unless the subject or income potential compells it I do not recommend most shooters rush into Fx when there are such good crop cameras out now.
        Between the D300s and D7000, for me it was easy, IQ for portraiture and landscapes was the main interest so the D7000 was added about 1 year after it was announced….I was happy with my D90, and still happy with it. In your case the wildlife subjects make the choice a little more confusing. The AF performance of the D300 is really good and for moving darting, small animals or birds would be better. For larger game animals, shore birds or those which fly predictable paths, either one would be fine. For landscape, macro the D7000 has noticeable advantages, the added resolution being one but the incredible dynamic range and vanishing low noise are being even more important. I shoot primarily at low ISO, like I used to with film after seeing how good the D7000 is at 100 ISO even when in low light which under exposes the image. The flexibility of the resulting fine for post processing has to be experienced to believed. Same with the D800, its biggest advantage over other cameras, all other cameras, is the very low read noise at low ISO so there is more recoverable noiseless data captured even if way under exposed.
        My suggestion would be to decide first if you are comfortable with the FX cost of ownership and if that is not something you are willingly wanting to take on, I would not even look at a new FX like the D600(?) because, the advantages are not geared towards your specialties, and even a “low cost” FX is still not a savings overall since the realignment of your lens collection will dwarf and camera costs. If you are comfortable with the lens needs, I would hold off any decision until after reviews come out . It will drive D700 prices down on the used market and will give you more options for new or used under $2000.
        I hope I did not muddy the water more. Actually Nikon muddied the waters plenty by introducing so many really nice small low cost f/1.8 primes for Dx so the clear advantage of FX in low light is no so much. An 85 1.8G plants more light on each pixel on a D7000 than a 2.8 something else on a D700.
        Good luck

        • Tim Behuniak
          September 9, 2012 at 1:05 pm

          Thank you so much for your respond. No problem on the delay! I think I decided to go with the D300s! I think 12 MP should be enough for landscapes, as I’m shooting with six right now (D40) and I’m not a pro. I will get some good glass and I think I will be happy. I can’t justify the move to FX for myself just yet. Thank you so much for your time! I appreciate it!

  98. 98) A.Jayamohan
    December 11, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Hi Nikon professional, I bought a ND7000 last month and I am enjoying this wonderful camera a lot. It gives me good pic and I am happy about it…but recently I noticed when I am taking a birds flight, the pic seems to be blured ( wings only). Is this because of the 6fps? or I need a better, fast lens? Please advice…Thanks.

    with regards


  99. 99) A.Jayamohan
    December 11, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Any body please….tell me the exact reason.

    • 99.1) gfinlayson
      December 12, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      What lens were you using, what aperture, shutter speed and autofocus settings did you use?

  100. 100) A.Jayamohan
    December 12, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    I am using 18_135 lens, 3D tracking and a fast shutterspeeed

  101. December 13, 2012 at 9:56 am

    How fast was your shutter speed? To satisfactorily freeze the wing motion of a bird in flight, shutter speed would need to be faster than 1/1000 of a second, ideally 1/1600 – 1/2000.

    • 101.1) A.Jayamohan
      December 13, 2012 at 10:24 am

      Oh! Thanks sir :) My shutterspeed was lesser than 1/1600. Anyway next time I will check and reply. and kindly suggest me some good lenses for bird photography.

  102. December 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Ideally for bird photography, you want a relatively fast aperture lens of sufficient focal length to get you close enough.

    The lenses I use mainly for bird photography are the Nikon AF-S 80-200 f/2.8, sometimes with a 1.4x TC, (which gives 112-280mm at f/4) and the Sigma 500mm f/4.5.

    The Nikon 300mm f/4 is another good choice and relatively affordable.

  103. 103) A.Jayamohan
    December 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Thank you sir :) One more doubt..Can I take good pics of bird flight easily like D300s? I am using D7000.

    • 103.1) gfinlayson
      December 14, 2012 at 2:03 am

      The D300s has a slightly better AF system than the D7000, however the D7000 excels in image quality. With the right settings, patience and practice, the D7000 is more than capable of capturing birds in flight:

      • 103.1.1) A.Jayamohan
        December 14, 2012 at 4:46 am

        Thanks a lot sir…try to catch the bird flight and let you know the details :)

  104. 104) Storch
    March 9, 2013 at 8:42 am

    Does anyone knows which Nikon DSLR bodies have fast AF motors?
    I suppose that D300/D300S has faster AF motor than D7000.
    It’s important for me, since I have older AF Nikkor 300mm F4 IF-ED lens with screwdrive AF operation.

  105. 105) Sherrie
    March 19, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    I would use this camera to take more photos of landscape and nature, and also for my Children’s Themed Sessions for my Photography business…. Capturing Life’s Best Photography!

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <i> <s>