D7200 vs D300 after 1 week of use 

I'm so happy my video was helpful to you! 😃

D300 is still brilliant - and now with ai upscaling, who really needs more than the 12.3MP? The whole experience with the D300 feels just 'right'. I've had mine.. for 12 years. A lot of gear has come and gone in that time, I don't think I'll ever sell it.

@@wherezthebeef how do you do this AI upscaling?

D300 is a MUCH better camera than any 3xxx/5xxx series camera, those are not durable and lack pro features. But they are small and lightweight... that's about all I can say for them.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the missing D400... that would have made so much sense to me. I ended up buying a used D810 more recently, and I'm so happy to have a less amateur-oriented body again.

I never owned one, but I remember using a D200 as well, and I had the same impression. It was a really solid camera, too.

instablaster...

PoeticFlair Photography you're absolutely right, and I think the improved ISO performance is what gets me reaching for the D7200 instead of the D300. But the D300 has definitely stood the test of time!

ISO performance is better in "newer" cameras than in 10-15 year old models, but that may well be more of a marketing ploy than some practical improvement. In my opinion, about 10 years ago the photography sensor technology reached its peak, and nothing "better" can be invented. Why do you need super-high ISO anyway? If you do, there is probably not enough available light, and if that's really the case, it means your lighting is unsatisfactory, therefore, the pictures are not going to be extraordinary, so what's the point in taking them? Yes, with the ISO cranked up you will get an image of your subject but it will be a dull-ish looking picture with rather washed-out colors. What's the point in taking any a priori "substandard" pics? I remember the film era when you actually would plan meticulously for each shot, and as a result there were more keepers than in digial era. And if you really need to take a "utilitarian" picture of, say, some announcement or a shopping-list or something like that your you can always use your cellphone camera. Just my 2 cents:) Happy shooting!

Very interesting, thanks for this infos. :-)

The good old D300 focusing definitely still feels great to me. I've got to say that I personally haven't noticed focusing issues with my D7200, but the majority of what I shoot these days is landscapes, so I've usually got a pretty deep DoF to work with. I'll have to check when I do some more portraiture or wildlife! Thanks for watching!

fdー5/200

I know this is old but nikon was never going to go to fx. They said no reason ! It’s true ! Sort of. For day time standard ISO’s DX does it all, everyone crops full frame in wildlife and sports photography. No need in DX. Every photographer should have a great DX body. It just makes sense !

smalltalk.productions D7200 blows it away on Iq, especially DR . I’ve tested both and lifting deep shadows on the D300s and the image doesn’t look real, horrible grain and colour loss. Not so on d7200, it’s amazing you can go 100percent and still looks natural with 0 colour loss.

That goes for the D300 as well.

"Ergonomics of the D7200 is not the best" - depends on where from you've stared. i've started from d40x, d5100, d7100, d7200, got totally used to their controls layout and get lost with nikon's pro cams ones (d500)

Hey Neil, I still like it, but still miss the build/layout of the D300. I almost always use the D7200 now, but that's in part because I've been using it to shoot video as well. Sometimes I think about getting the D500, just to get the better build/layout, though, but it's still a bit more money than I can justify.

Yea, I agree the build quality on the D300 is amazing. Good to hear you are happy with the D7200. The video was perfect to compare the two. Price for the D7200 body is down to $899 for a new one and seems the best way to go. D500 is more than I need. Thanks again for the info and keep on shooting. Take care, Neil, Toronto Canada.

@@raphaeltm_ why not to go for d810, used they are cheaper today and way better for nature/landscape. specs say d500 is even worse than d7200 for landscape... d500 is great for sports (well, sony's are killing nikon in that domain today)...

@@andreik3096 That's fair. I didn't realize the D810 had dropped in price so much. Time flies. In the past, when I shot more wildlife, I would have said that the DX sensor of the D500 or D7200 would be preferable to the DX crop mode of the D810, but I rarely get to shoot wildlife these days, so indeed the D810 seems like a better choice. That's probably why my instinct was to go for the DX camera over the FX.

Agreed. The D300 has a much better body. Also much better layout for controls (I wish I could get rid of the automatic modes wheel on the D7200).

Nikon D7200 Back Button Focus Set-up ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aadlFZ5CTNs.html

Hey John! Been here in Van for a few years now and loving it, but I wouldn't mind moving to some parts of Europe either! A couple things to unpack in your question... Re: the D7200 vs D300: I'd say it's a minor step up in image quality, a minor step down in build quality, and a significant step up in video quality (D300 has no video and D300s from what I understand has very rudimentary video) As far as the D7200 vs D750, what I've heard/read is that the big advantage of the D750 over the D7200 is just the FX sensor. FX sensors are larger, which means each pixel on the sensor can be larger, which means more light per pixel which translates to better low light performance. There are other pros and cons to the D750/D7200, where each camera has some wins/losses, but that's the key differentiator. I don't know how well versed you are in all of this, but just in case: one thing to look out for is if you've bought any "DX" lenses, they will not fill the frame on the D750, so you might need to replace them with non-DX equivalents. If you want to stick with DX cameras and want a step up, I would take a look at the D500, which is $300 more than the D750, and will suffer from the same low-light issues as any DX camera compared to an FX camera, but includes things like shooting up to 10FPS, ISO up to 51200 (though keep in mind quality will be questionable), 4k video, and faster autofocus. The D500 was really built to be the successor to the D300, whereas the D7200 was built with a more entry-level audience. So with the D500 you'll get the more "pro-feeling" body and button layout that you may have come to love (like I did) with the D300. That means no "auto" or scene modes, or any other such extras, which you'll find on both the D7200 and D750. If you're more of a landscape or portrait shooter, though, the D750 sounds like a camera worth checking out. In the end it's all down to what you want/need to shoot :-) Sorry for the essay! Hope it was helpful, though.

@@raphaeltm_ thanks for this:-) cheers

Hi Mike, It really depends what your needs are, but if you're on a small budget, and you also want to do video work, then it might be worth checking out some mirrorless cameras, like the ones mentioned here: www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57516512 In the end, the most important factor in making beautiful images/videos will often be your lenses, so if you can distribute your budget to get a nice lens with a decent camera, you'll likely be happier than if you try to get a nice camera with an okay lens. I still have a Panasonic GX-1, which is far from perfect, but it's a nice, cheap, small camera that shoots decent video and solid stills. It's not very good at high ISO, but here in Canada, you can buy a used one for $150, which is a pretty awesome price. I use these lenses with it: a.co/ad8Bj5R (Sigma 30mm 2.8) a.co/11Jxa2y (Lumix 14mm 2.5) If you really want to specifically switch over to Nikon, I would say look around a bit more for the best prices... as far as I can tell searching through Canadian and American sites, the D300S and the D7000 sell for almost the same price ~$600. As you can tell from the video and the comments below, I think the body of the D300 line is better than the D7000 line, but I think image quality and a couple extra features have improved a bit over time. It's probably worth actually holding the cameras and seeing how important the build quality is for you. Video performance will almost *definitely* be better on newer models than on the D300S, though, if that's important to you.

éphémère thanks for your complete answer. In fact I was looking at d7000 because of video capabilities. D300 are way expensive. At least I can take a still camera, like d80 or 90 just to do better photo than my eos 1100d. What do you think?

That would have been great if my budget permitted it at the time, but it did not. What I needed was video and a higher resolution within my budget. The D7200 fulfilled those needs and its sensor seems to perform slightly better. The video describes that and is supposed to be a resource for anyone else with similar constraints and requirements considering the move. I'm currently considering a used D810, but even used those stretch the budget if they're in good condition. Same with the D800 at the time I recorded the video.

@@raphaeltm_ ok sure... i get it

and yes auto iso does take the focal length of your lens into account. You can turn that on and off and slightly adjust the shutter speed off the auto calculation value plus or minus one or two shutter speeds.

Hey Julia. I think it will depend on your personal situation and how each camera feels to you. If you can take each camera out for a test run and see how they work for you, that's probably the best thing you can do. Re: the wedding, I think your biggest concern should be getting some good glass, if you don't have any yet. So maybe that means getting the D300 and investing the rest of your budget in a nice lens or two (if you can stretch the budget a bit). Of course, you'll need to figure out if that makes sense for your situation, but maybe this blog post can help: baileyelle.com/5-best-wedding-lenses-budget/ (I'm a fan of the 35mm 1.8 as a good budget lens: www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-35-1p8g-n15/4)

My 2 cents is that I don't like the d7500 at all. I personally think that the D7200 has better specs/features, and is proven. Keep in mind that a D300 with a vertical battery grip (filled with AA batteries) is a heavy rig. A D7200 with a grip and batteries is about half the weight. But I carried a Nikon F3hp Manual Focus Film camera with the MD4 motor drive and 8 AA batteries for 20 years. just the body, winder and batteries weigh 3.25 POUNDS! Add a Nice old school Nikkor lens and your looking at 5 pounds of the best film camera ever made. But I got so used to the alloy everything rig that I prefer a heavy setup. The D300 is not as heavy but still much heavier than it's lighter cousin the D7200. I have found mint condition D300 bodies with less that 50,000 Shutter Actuations for under $225.00 local. $300.00 with the MB-D10 Battery Grip... That was $2500.00 new. It is a no-brainer if you can live with only one card slot and the weight! The D300 is a bulletproof beast. A true Pro DX DSLR. In my opinion it's only surpassed by the mystical Nikon D500.

I just bought a D300s today for $100 shutter count was 8,098

As already said, try each and see what feels best to you. I would go for the 300s over the 300, minor improvements but worth going for. i have owned a 300 since 2009, great camera and have used everything you can think of, for a period of time. The 7200 or above will give you better high iso low light performance, if that will be a large portion of what you plan to do that would be the better choice. currently using a D7100 for some things, it works well, has nice features and produces nice images. For me feels a little small but useable. I prefer the function buttons on the 300 as opposed to the dial on the 7100 but workable.

macpro8@ If you have a heavy rig, its better per hand to shoot.

Hey Roberto, I just did a bit of digging, and unfortunately I don't think the D300 has a clean hdmi feed, sorry! I can't find documentation that explicitly says that, but if you look at this official page for which Nikon cameras can be used for external HDMI recording, the D300 is not listed. Since a clean feed would be required for recording, I think it's safe to say the D300 can't do it. www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000006349&configured=1&lang=en_GB

@@raphaeltm_ thank you so much for this mate that was very kind of you to research this for me. I’ve seen articles myself online that say this but I think I’m in denial about the whole thing tbh and need someone else to tell me to pack it in and move on 😢

@@RobertoCampoliOfficial no problem! And sorry to be the bearer of bad news 🙁

dont sell, buy a used d300 for daytime sports. d3400 is good for lowlight and landscapes

I do! I adore film. Here's a blog post about my favourite film camera: writing.raphaeltm.com/it-took-a-while-but-i-got-a-mamiya-57405c8d34b

Good enough for even hi-end professional use.

D7200 is a generation ahead, quite noticeable.

+ 2 storge sd slots cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D300-vs-Nikon-D7200

I guess what I'm saying wasn't clear, because what I'm saying is actually _specifically predicated_ on the fact that they have the same crop factor. Sorry about that. Here's a better explanation. If I want a 24MP image with a nice wide ~75 degree field of view, I have two options: 1st option is to take 3-4 shots using my 35mm lens (which has a ~37 degree horizontal FOV on DX) on the D300's 12MP sensor. Once stitched together, I could build up an image from those shots that would be 24MP and cover a FOV of ~75 degrees. 2nd option is to take the D7200, which already has a 24MP sensor, and stick my Tokina 11-16mm and shoot it at 15mm, which would have a ~75 degree FOV. Does that better describe what I mean to you? The whole reason this is important to me, is because I like making large prints of big, sweeping panoramas. I could get the same shot with the same lens on both cameras (usually my Tokina), but on the D300, it would be too low res for the prints I want to make. So usually what I did with the D300 was I would get out a 35mm or 50mm lens, and stitch together a few shots, so I would have enough resolution with the same kind of sweeping vista as the Tokina 11-16. With the D7200, I didn't have to do that anymore.