D300s or d3200 wildlife

petert

Suspended / Banned
Messages
697
Name
pete
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend of mine needs a second body to his d600 for a bit of wildlife photography (not serious stuff) so for extra reach wants a crop body but doesn't want to spend to much, seen both of.the above at reasonable prices but not sure which to go for, much prefers the build of the d300 but is the sensor a bit too outdated now?
 
The d300 will trounce the 3200 in all ways (especially autofocus) except possibly IQ (the 3200 is good with great lenses) and crop ability.
 
D300 or D300s. I use to shoot with D300 and D7000 for semi pro sports until I move on to D3/D700 combo. The D300 was my go to camera instead of the D7000.

the reasons are the build quality on the D300 is pro body, better handle then the consumer body when shooting all day, better AF speed and focus then the D7000.

Only downside is ISO quality above 3200 but if you don't shoot too high then is all good.
 
He wants a second.body anyway too much changing and needs a back up, he does a lot more photography than me
 
Last edited:
As far as body goes he wants the d300 by a mile but concerned about IQ of the older sensor
 
Anyone still use one out of interest?
 
I still use my D300s for motorsport and wildlife, and I choose it over the D750 (95%) of the time - if that helps.
 
It does I think he's decided on the d300s
 
You will be surprise the build quality and the handle of the D300s is better then the d600.
 
I used to have a d300s and the d7100 isn't built anywhere near as good
 
Shame Nikon doesn't make a pro DX body. D300(s) seems to be the last one. I like the D300 so much that I replace it with the D700.
 
if you want that kind of body which I love rather than need admittedly the d300s is the only dx option
 
OK chatting yesterday, he's now ruled out the d5200 too entry level but in has come the d7000 I think it's just the old sensor of the d300s thats holding him back. Anyone had/have both?
 
I've had the D3200, D7000 & still have D7100.

The D7100 is far better than the other 2 - except in terms of lightness - as the D3200 is tiny...
So D3200 - for spare body really light, punches above its weight....lol
D7000 - Good iso - up to 1600, but really poor buffer
D7100 - Good iso - again to 1600, better buffer, lighter than the D7000, it works really well.
 
I've got the d7100 he's tried it and loves it as I do but he's after another lens so budget limited for the body, he does prefer the tougher body of the d300s but......... It's the old.sensor? Decisions decisions lol
 
Would anyone still get the d300s over the d7000?
This is the last question then he's going to have to make his dam mind up :))
 
Last edited:
I downgraded quite some time ago. I went from a D700 to a D7000 and now have a D300. I like the D300 much more than the D7000, it just feels so much better in the hand and it is built to last. For what I shoot, it's fantastic.
 
No, not really. I always shoot In Raw, process minimally, and am more than happy.
 
He does do but mainly jpeg I think, would one be better than the other
 
There are a few reviews around about the d300s vs d7000, one review here puts the d7000 on top but it compares the sensors by MP size which is rather pointless. Also it compares their ISO by the possible range of available ISO settings rather than the actual maximum useable ISO values.

For wildlife things like auto focus and FPS can become quite important. I had a d7000 and found the AF was very hit and miss. The d7100 was a dream to use just because the AF was so much better.

What does your friend do with the images, if it's printing small or website use the d300s is still a very useable camera.

Currently I'm thinking of backup/remote camera options to a d800, so far it's really out of the d600 or d700. The d700 is older but still has great AF and 12 mp is still enough for what I use. But then the d600 has better dynamic range and slightly better useable ISO. So far I haven't decided whether it's really a remote camera where great AF isn't required or if it would be better to have something that has better AF and FPS compared to the d800. Either way both would be good enough cameras for me.
 
Well, for getting the most out of the file the RAW would be better obviously. I generally don't work in jpeg so couldn't say. The sensors on the D300 and D300s are more than capable, and IQ is great. Just make sure you are using, and getting the best out of the lens you stick on the front of it.
 
He does a lot of printing, it's.not it's sole purpose but quite a bit is work orientated I believe A4 up to.A3 size prints
 
Well, for getting the most out of the file the RAW would be better obviously. I generally don't work in jpeg so couldn't say. The sensors on the D300 and D300s are more than capable, and IQ is great. Just make sure you are using, and getting the best out of the lens you stick on the front of it.
He uses primes 90% of the time
 
Thanks I'll tell him to get the d300s, I just wish they built the d7100 like it but can't complain it's a formidable camera
 
Thank you for help, he's already bought a d7000 lol. Git
 
I think the general consensus is that the newer sensors will produce better IQ which is why he went for 7000
 
Back
Top