Wall Art Gifts and Editorial Stock Images

No products in the cart.

Home / Photography News / Nikon D300 replacement

Nikon D300 replacement

Nikon D7200 DSLR camera is it the Nikon D300 replacement?

Nikon D300 Replacement, The King is dead – long live the King!

Last week I was discussing whether the soon to be released Nikon D7200 would be the replacement of the Nikon D300.

So after taking a few days to digest the news and opinions generated by the actual release, it seems the much anticipated Nikon D400 might actually be here at last.

Except Nikon put a spanner in the works and called it the D7200. *Update 06/01/16 – Nikon releases Nikon D500 as true D300 replacement*

For those, including me, awaiting an evolution of the classic Nikon D300/D300s model I think its probably time we moved on and accepted the Nikon D7200 is ‘the evolution’ we have been waiting for.

Looking at the specs, its hard to see what else could be seriously expected. More importantly, what other features do crop body users seriously NEED over and above what the D7200 offers?

Lets look at the specs of the Nikon D7200 compared to the D300 ….

Features

sensor

Image processor

Anti-Aliasing filter

Native ISO

Memory Buffer

(Single Burst)

AF System

AF Detection

Crop Mode

Nikon D7200

24.2mp
Expeed 4*
 No
 100 to 25600

27 x 12 bit RAW

18 x 14 bit RAW

Multi-Cam 3500 II*

EV -3 to EV +19

1.3x

Nikon D300

12.3mp

Expeed 1

Yes

200 to 3200

21 x 12 bit RAW

18 x 14 bit RAW

Nikon Multi-CAM 3500DX

EV -1 to EV +19

N/A

* Same as the Nikon D750

Its immediately obvious that the Nikon D7200 is vastly superior in features compared to the Nikon D300 – well lets face facts, it should be as the D300 is 8 years old.

But in reality the comparison is pointless. The Nikon D300 is still an excellent camera. It is solid, rugged and full of adequate features. But it is undeniably 8 years old. 8 years in an environment where the technology is evolving significantly every 2 years or so.

The real question is what should the Nikon D300 replacement really look like feature wise?

What could or should a Nikon D300 replacement offer?

So bearing in mind the image processor and AF System from the Pro Full Frame range of Nikon cameras have been used in the D7200, what could the D300 replacement offer over and above what the D7200 offers?

Keep to the forefront of your mind that, body only, the D7200 is less than £1000. Slowly the penny should be dropping that this it, there is no logical reason to pursue the D400 dream.

If the D400 is to come to life, what features would it need to have to justify its place in the market?

Is there anything in the Nikon Pro Full Frame range that could trickle down and make a significant improvement without taking the body into the Pro price range?

Slowly the penny should be dropping that this it, there is no logical reason to pursue the D400 dream.

One could surmise that any Nikon D300 replacement would feature some significant upgrades, but I dont see any gaps in the existing Nikon product range that would justify ‘another’ DX body on top of the D7200.

I also believe the next large steps in Nikon development will be in the FF pro range. I would be extremely surprised to see a revolutionary DX model with ground breaking features being released and those new features then being rolled out into new Full Frame pro body.

I think the main areas of concern for most photographers are –

  • the camera can focus fast and accurately
  • images are registered accurately by a good quality sensor
  • images are processed fast and efficiently so you can carry on shooting.

From what I can see the D7200 does just that, and judging by the rave reviews of the Nikon D750 (where components for 2 of these 3 features come from), should do it very well.

A shortcoming in any of those three key areas makes the camera unsuitable for this market niche – pro-sumer, semi-pro or whatever you want to label it.

For those already with a D7100, then I agree the ‘evolution’ is somewhat less appealing. Although it could be argued the D7100s main weakness, if it had one, was the buffer. That buffer shortcoming has now been addressed with an impressive 27 consecutive 12 bit RAWs. Check out the Nikon D7100 v D7200 comparison chart for a detailed side by side comparison.

Any faster throughput begs the question as to why you NEED to machine gun any more shots out of a single burst?

It could also be argued that a step change is necessary in this market niche. Moving towards 80 or 90 focus points with added cross type AF points would be useful. Getting nearer to double digit FPS could also be useful. More fine control over the AF tracking system would be very useful. What about eye movement detection to control the AF points?

All sound very nice but two issues come to mind. Firstly, some of these features are already available in the Pro range. Secondly there will be an additional hit to the wallet.

How much extra do you want to spend? Or in reality, how much more do you NEED to spend. Once you start heading towards the £1500, £1600 or even £1700 price point you start drifting away from the niche you are serving. Nikon also risk customers dropping out of the Pro range market and going for a product, that is undeniably, extremely competent and at a fraction of the cost.

What about jumping ship to another brand instead of waiting for a D300 replacement?

Well what else is there out in the market place?

The Sony A77ii? Now this is a nice looking camera. I love the colours and ‘look’ of the images from my NEX-6, so perhaps this is a contender?

Lets quickly look at the three features mentioned above.

Autofocus

The A77ii does offer more focus points at 79 compared to Nikons 51.

But, is the AF module comparable? Are those 79 AF points better managed and integrated on the Sony?

The short answer is I dont think so. I havent used a Sony A77ii but looking through the myriad of opinions, I havent seen any conclusive arguments to convince me the Sony 79 are better or worse than Nikons 51.

The Canon 7D2, although not a direct comparison, has 65 AF points and importantly, all are cross type sensors compared to both the Nikons and Sonys 15 cross types. The Canon also has options to make more subtle alterations to the AF tracking of moving objects. That is definitely something worth having on your feature list – but do you want fork out another £500 for the privilege?

Image Processing

When looking at image processing, both the Canon and Sony cant match the low light performance of the Nikon processor.

The Sony cant match low light performance partly due to the translucent mirror arrangement which loses around 0.5 EV. In regard to the Canon 7D2 in simple terms, across the board in this price range, Canon just cant match Nikons quality in its shadow detail.

For me personally, despite the D7200 having class leading modules from the Nikon pro range in the autofocus and image processing modules, the one single over-riding factor is how Nikon have integrated the metering and focusing system.

In spot metering mode, neither the Sony or the Canon has tied the metering system to the selected AF point. If you do use spot metering with the Sony or Canon, you are tied to the central AF point.

That is a massive deal for a lot of photographers – or at least it should be. It frees up creativity in compositions out in the field and removes the need to make a creative crop in post processing.

If you are wanting to shoot sport, fast moving action such as birds in flight or aircraft at airshows, this feature seals the deal.

Again looking back at my three critical factors, rightly or wrongly, the D7200 is the only one to tick all the boxes.

It could be argued that an articulated rear screen should be fitted as standard. It could also be argued that the D7200 isnt a full metal body. I think the removal of the back focus button is a mistake (but its also gone from the D750). But on the scale of things, these are minor issues.

Looking back at the introduction I asked a serious question – what other features do crop body users seriously NEED over and above what the D7200 offers?

Hand on heart, I cant think of anything and my order has been submitted.

And for that reason the D7200 is, at last, the Nikon D300 replacement.

As I said earlier, the King is dead, long live the King!

Thanks for reading, I would love to hear your views so please leave your thoughts on the new King below.

Cheers

Gary

** UPDATE **

Following on from this post I eventually purchased a Nikon D7200 – read my thoughts in this post – Nikon D7200 v D300 one month later

If you liked this article then why not share it with someone you know who will also find it interesting …. thanks!



Related Posts …..

2 comments

  • Thank you for going to the trouble of making this comparison. I to have been using the d300 for 7 years, I actually like the extra depth of field that DX gives and I dont really want to go full frame. I have held on to my d300 for 7 years now, waiting for Nikon to bring out something to replace it and having to process every picture in raw, whilst my Canon user buddies can use the jpegs straight out of the camera.
    I probably would go d750 if it were in a D300 body.
    I think that nikon do not want to give us the Hassleblad/Bronica of the 1980’s. What I mean is, a camera that you would never need to replace because it does what you want it to, is the physical size that you want it to be and with all the buttons in the right place, and a D750 in a D300 body would be just that. So we will be offered a never ending changing product line of not quite right cameras, being to high pixel count for practical use or having all the features you might need but in a dinky little body that you cant get your shovel size hands to hold. People will buy these as a stopgap until the Up to date D700 and D300 is announced (which will be maybee never)

    • Hi Mike, thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my article. I think you have hit the nail right on the head with your Hassleblad/Bronica analogy. I guess the D300 is a victim of its own success and Nikon have learnt not to put out such a fully featured model again. For the consumer that equates to a succession of ‘nearly awesome cameras’. For my part, I dont regret upgrading to the D7200. The size is an issue and there are a couple of other niggles which I discussed in the follow up article. But all in all, the Nikon D7200 is a worthy upgrade now the buffer has been addressed. I can see it lasting me several years as my main camera. Unless the D400/D450 or whatever they call it has a class shattering specification for £1200 – £1500, then I think the D7200 to all intents and purpose has made the D300 successor irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Next Event 28th and 29th April - Wartime in the Cotswolds Dismiss