After my Nikon D300 had broken on holidays, I decided to buy a D300s as a replacement.
But recently the brand new D7000 was released and I received many emails asking me why I decided for the older D300s and did not buy the slightly cheaper and newer D7000.

Well it was a very close race for me between the D7000 and the D300s.
My camera broke at an unfortunate time, because later this year the D400 should become available (D7000 sensor in a pro-DX body), and I am planning to buy it. However since I needed a camera right now, I had the choice between the D7000 and D300s.

The problem with the entry-level bodies like the D7000 is, that you need different batteries, different cards and other connectors, like a different remote release. Frankly I did not see the point in buying all those additional things for a camera that I will definitely sell again when the D400 gets released this year.

So whilst I was very tempted to buy the 16MP D7000 with superior image quality, I stuck with the D300s. It allows me to keep on using my batteries, CF Cards, remote release and camera plate.

Essentially, for me the more expensive D300s is the better camera. However, the D7000 is no clunker, it’s 80% of what the D300s is. Now, if that was all there was to the story, the D300s would be the better camera, but there’s a lot more.
On the spec sheet, the D7000 equals or betters the $500 more expensive D300s in areas like high ISO performance, resolution (more mega pixels), video capability, AF capabilities (those extra 12 points on the D300s probably don’t matter much), frame rate (D7000 can go 6fps in 14 bit while the D300s can only do 2.5 in 14 bit), AF microadjust, and a built-in intervalometer.
Looking at the complete package, there’s no reason not to buy the D7000 unless you are like me and not a fan of the entry-level design (esp. when you are used to a pro body) as well as the issues I mentioned above. So you must decide if you want to get the essentially 3 ½ year old D300s or if you can live with the few shortcomings, buy the latest and greatest by buying the D7000.

I can hardly wait for the D400 to get released. But for the time being I have to bite the bullet and shoot with a camera that is not at the top of the DX line-up anymore.

Well a few days ago I was wondering whether I should replace my broken D300 by upgrading to a D700 and therefore going full-frame.

I have now made my decision. I will stick to the D300, or what is the newer model – the D300s.
It’s basically a D300 with a few minor bells and whistles (HD movie, 2nd card slot, artificial horizon and silent shooting mode).

I simply realised that all those super wide angles for full-frame can’t take filters, and therefore are completely uninteresting to me. Aside from many disadvantages IMO of a full frame sensor over a cropped sensor (see attached image), there is a larger choice of wide and super wide-angle lenses for cropped sensors and almost all of them can take filters (esp. at the super WA end of things).

As you can see, the issues are mostly related to the corners of the image. And since a full frame sensor is larger than a cropped sensor, you hardly have the above mentioned issues on a DX sensor because it does not cover the corners of the image.
Also lenses and bodies are much cheaper for cropped sensors and it would have been expensive for me to upgrade those lenses, for virtually no apparent difference in image quality.
Of course I understand why some ppl upgrade due to the obvious better ISO capabilities, but personally I do not care about high ISO settings as 99% of the time I shoot at ISO 200 or less.

So I stick to cropped-frame and looking less professional on location, but I can live with that