Nikon D7000 vs Nikon D300

Nikon D7000


Nikon D300



Reasons to buy the Nikon D7000

We are not aware of any reasons to consider buying the Nikon D7000 over the Nikon D300.

Reasons to buy the Nikon D300

We are not aware of any reasons to consider buying the Nikon D300 over the Nikon D7000.


Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D300.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D7000.


Nikon D7000 Competitors

Nikon D5300

Nikon D5300

Entry-level DSLR

$474 body only

$459 with 18-55mm lens

Nikon D750

Nikon D750


$1,149 - $1,297 body only

$1,797 with 24-120mm lens

Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100

Entry-level DSLR

$709 body only

$1,097 with 18-55mm lens

Nikon D300 Competitors

Nikon D90

Nikon D90

Entry-level DSLR

$449 body only

Nikon D300S

Nikon D300S


$1,755 body only

$2,299 with 18-200mm lens

Nikon D5600

Nikon D5600

Entry-level DSLR

$468 - $597 body only

$500 - $647 with 18-55mm lens


Nikon D7000

Report a correction
Nikon D300

Report a correction

Showing 25 comments

Avatar for Shawn Earle Shawn Earle (7:39 AM, December 22, 2014)
In favor of the D200 though I should mention that is way better auto white balance than my D3200. For some reason the D3200 likes to add an orange or blue tint to photos that need to be removed post process.
Avatar for Shawn Earle Shawn Earle (7:34 AM, December 22, 2014)
I have the D200 and at anything over Iso 250 the photos look crappy. Now I bought it used for $250 not new for $1,700 but still it is unacceptable. I have not used a D300 but according to the specs low light photo quality isn't much better? The D7000 however has similar signal to noise as my D3200 so should be good up to about Iso 800. I do appreciate the rugged build quality of my D200 but if I can't get decent photos only in bright sunlight it kind of defeats the purpose.
Avatar for Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen (5:20 PM, November 21, 2013)
How do you feel about compact flash three years down the line? My D7000 has two SD card slots. My picture frames have SD card slots, my camera kit connector for my iPad does, as does my iMac. I got rid of everything that doesn't use SD cards.
Avatar for Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen (5:13 PM, November 21, 2013)
Obsolete range.
Avatar for Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen (5:12 PM, November 21, 2013)
>> The top LCD screen on the d7000 is small and crappy, and filled with unimportant garbage, that is of no use unless you can access the setting while keeping your eye in the viewfinder.

Hmm... Logic structure, the sense of have you not...

Dude, Coffee: you should look into cutting down.
Avatar for Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen (5:08 PM, November 21, 2013)
Ishaan, the D7000 is almost universally (see Alton Andrews' review) thought to have better IQ. But IQ is not the be all and end all of a camera.
Avatar for Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen (5:07 PM, November 21, 2013)
He can always cut and paste ;-)
Avatar for Pyke Pyke (3:26 PM, August 06, 2013)
So...what about the DXX cameras like D40, D90?
Avatar for Serious Gearhead Serious Gearhead (11:41 AM, April 03, 2013)
This comment reeks of bitterness from someone whose favorite camera has been bested by a less expensive model.
Congratulations, you've gotten almost everything wrong. You can't defend the D300 with references to other cameras(D300S and Camcorders). All the world has seen and recognized the fantastic IQ of the D7000 except Alton Andrew who finds it "cartoon-like". Many pros are now using the D7000. What you call "gimmicks" are valuable features to those whose eyes aren't clouded by prejudice. A lighter camera beats a heavy one at the end of a long day shooting, especially one with better IQ and better resolution. One wonders if you really do own a D7000 given how strongly you dump on it. Get over it. All cameras eventually will be replaced by better ones.
petegk salonika (7:13 PM, October 30, 2012)
many thanks for the detailed comparison , your report is much more useful than the official one in this page ,in short d7000 is an amateur camera and not for pro photographers , my regards pete
Avr (3:39 PM, April 12, 2012)
 Sorry Andrew - but you are talking about a different camera. the "S" was an upgrade to the D300, and thus your comparisons and complaints do not apply
Avr (3:37 PM, April 12, 2012)
This comparison was based on the D300 NOT the D300S (as ess-whole).   I seem to recall the "S" was an upgrade to the D300, and as such the "S" is a different camera. Those making reference to the capabilities of the 300-ESS (S) are in the wrong comparison page.
Jberry3479 (10:09 PM, January 23, 2012)
They both have their place. I actually use both the D300 and D7000. Dont laugh but I even have a D3000 that is my throw in a backpack and take everywhere camera. ( Its cheaper to replace ) They all do a great job, and they all have their pitfalls. I would never even think of trying to use the 3000 or 7000 to shoot a motocross race just like I would never take the 300 or 7000 in to some of the high tight places Ive climbed. It all depends on what you do, how you do it and what your comfortable with. Good friend of mine has a 7000 and I can get better quality with the 3000 then he can with the 7000 just because Im not afraid to play with settings.
Avatar for Jermar46375 Jermar46375 (1:48 PM, January 07, 2012)
Thanks for the many reviews I have read.  I currently own a D5000 which I would like to upgrade. My "hobbyist" shooting has now turned very dedicated as I am shooting sports freelance.   I have a Nikon 80-200 F/2.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8 which both work well with my D5000 body.     Before I read all the posts here, I was excited about the D7000.  But now I am taking everyones comments to heart.    I am torn between the D7000 refurbished at about $1000, the D300 refurbished at about $1600 and a few D3's refurbished somewhere in the $3,500 range.    My preference is for the D3 then I can eliminate all the guesswork.   I currently shoot at 4 fps with the D5000.   The D300 and D7000 shoot in the area of 6-7 fps.    This would certainly be great.    The D3 shoots 9-11 fps from what I have read.    

I shoot high school and grade school sports of all kinds.   Sometimes the gym's lighting is less than spectacular.    Keeping cost in mind, between the D7000, D300 and D3 I would like to hear from you as to which body is the best for my work.     Thanks...
Thesniper41stelite (9:10 AM, December 20, 2011)
Never saw a D7000 in the sandbox. Saw a 84C20  throw his Nikon D300s under a moving LAV because it had sand in it. Just about anything would get sand in it after time. Besides, my M4 did a lot better shooting of haji then any of the "shoot and hide" cameramen. Next time, stay home photo whores!
Ishaan_8 (11:36 PM, December 05, 2011)
Hi Andrew,can u tell me whch does have a sharper image quality between d300s and d7000,im vry confused which one to go for....
Chris (1:41 AM, October 28, 2011)
i read this all over the web.  here is the deal...

first, i think the review was completely based on a "consumer" perspective.  i shoot professionally and can say that the D7000, without a doubt, is a great camera.  it beats the D300s in many ways.  my main body is a D700.  i have a D300s as a backup and got rid of my D7000.  Why?  easy, because when you shoot as a pro, especially weddings, you WORK FAST.  i have 2 bodies going (24-70mm and 70-200mm) during a shoot and when going back and forth it's nice to have finger memory for ISO, EV, etc..  I may change the exposure compensation or ISO shot to shot.  the D700 is easy.  the D7000 makes it harder to find.  to ME, 1-2 stops better ISO or 1080p video is not that important.  if i need a shot with the D300s at 3200 then no big deal.  i will get the shot and use NEAT Image to clean it up in post.  it's about capturing the  moments.  also, bodies take a beating when you throw it down and run to catch something important.  i have tossed my cameras.  the D7000 will not take that punishment long...the D300s will.

you see, it's all about the target audience.  the D7000 is an AMAZING camera, but you won't see many pros using them except for maybe video.  Chase Jarvis has a few...FOR VIDEO.

if you are someone that relies mostly on images captured in camera and never post-process then the D7000 is the King of all Point and shoots wrapped in a DSLR body.  if you are a pro or semi-pro then you are probably shooting with a D700, D3, or D3s.  the D300s makes a great backup camera or a great body for a 1.5x crop.  the D300 will feel like the pro bodies and make the transition easier to use in a fast shoot.

in closing, there is no argument...they are both GREAT BODIES.  neither is "better."  if you are asking the question then you need to shoot more and make more pictures.  stop worrying about bodies unless it matters to your business.  a D3100 will produce the same image quality in good light.
Avatar for Dean Mitchell Dean Mitchell (5:01 PM, August 10, 2011)
Not keen on your D7000 then, I take it? ;-)

Yes, there are annoyances, but for the work I do  - babies and children - I love the camera. Okay, I can't BBF because the assignable button is too close to the viewfinder, but when it comes to IQ this thing blows my D300 out of the water. It also means I have the option of shooting one handed in all sorts of situations with a 35mm f/1.8G without getting tired. A grip makes it well enough balanced with my 80-200. I actually ditched my D700 for a D7000 because I needed/wanted more resolution before ISO ability. ISO performance is pretty much a non-factor in the final print anyway. I've found the D7000 files are beautiful with lovely tones for people. 
Alton Andrew (8:44 PM, June 25, 2011)
You would have to assign the fn button as AF-ON, but the buffer is the biggest killer on the d7000 if you intend to shoot sports - its practically a joke.
Alton Andrew (8:37 PM, June 25, 2011)
DXXXX consumer range, DXXX prosumer range, DX professional range. Take the d7000 and the d300s to a war zone (say as a regimental photographer) like Afghanistan, and see which one has fallen apart in 3 months time. All of my money would be on the d7000 having an early death. Not sure if you noticed what the embedded photogs were shooting at the start of the Iraqi war, but very quickly they all diminished, and mostly we were left with scenes of large white lenses taking the shots, and the occasional D3.
Alton Andrew (8:23 PM, June 25, 2011)
I believe the d7000 sensor amps up the mid range tones. I only shoot in RAW, so yes, in camera and PP there are ways to neutralize this effect, but you appear to lose sharpness as a result. That being said, when I have to process several thousand images after a shoot, the less post processing I have to do, the better. I much prefer a neutral image, and the neutral of the d7000 is significantly more saturated than the vivid settings in the d300s. In the perfect world, I would have the body and external controls of the d300s, the metering capability of my canons - they really just never bollox it up, and a 16.2mp FX sensor - I guess than means a D800 whenever its released.
Avatar for Snapsort Snapsort (0:23 PM, June 23, 2011)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on these cameras Andrew!  The "vivid cartoon-like" colors sounds like a strong negative, is it possible that can be improved by changing settings on the camera or shooting RAW?
Alton Andrew (5:16 AM, June 23, 2011)
BS voting in favor of the d7000. Still image focusing is MUCH better on the d300s, especially in low light - my d7000 jumps around like a lost puppy, but the d300s just nails it. The color accuracy is much more realistic on the d300s, very similar to what my eye sees. My d7000 looks like "vivid" on steroids, almost cartoon-like colors!! Buffer on the d7000 is laughable. If you shoot fast moving aircraft, you'll have less than 2 seconds worth of burst exposures (10 @ 6FPS) in RAW before you hit the buffer, then take a nap while it sloooowly recycles zzzzzzzz, oh sorry I nodded off. So for sports or fast moving action, seriously, get another camera. The image quality is better on the d7000, but not greatly. ISO is better on the d7000, but that advantage would be negated with good fast glass, and they ALL suffer at ISO 1600 and above. Go full Frame FX if you want superb IQ/ISO. You would have to blow images up to 2x3ft to see the difference. D300s body is a tank. The most important part of the d7000 body (where the lens attaches) is plastic, with the metal mount screwed into it, p.l.a.s.t.i.c. - very similar to the stuff American news readers are made of. Bracketing is much better on the d300s, and the d300s uses 16bit conversion (as per nikon website). Another d7000 annoyance - no EV metering inside the view finder in any mode except manual, so you don't know how the camera is adjusting exposure!! (FYI my old canon 40d blows both of them out of the water for buffer/ focusing speed/ev)

Ergonomics of the d300s are much much better, unless you have the feminine hands of a girlyman, you may find the d7000 more comfortable (but the rubber has less stippling and is of thinner and cheaper quality. The top LCD screen on the d7000 is small and crappy, and filled with unimportant garbage, that is of no use unless you can access the setting while keeping your eye in the viewfinder. Movie Mode is pretty good, and much better than the d300s, but positively rubbish compared to a camcorder. Traveling with either cameras and lenses will be a pain in the bum. Its lenses and balance, not the weight of camera bodies that makes them tiresome (glass is heavy) SD cards fail all the time CF do not, and SD's are much easier to lose. All the "customizability" of the d7000 are gimmicks designed to sell the brand. The d300s does everything extremely well, and doesn't need the gimmicks the newbies will use. They do nothing to help you become a better photog, so you'd be better off spending money on some good workshops with a pro. Ansell Adams said the most important part of the camera is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.
Maj_mike28 (8:51 AM, June 05, 2011)
I have a question... in what category should D7000 fall into.... Entry-Level, Mid-Pro or Pro... and Kindly make same explanation on this part... because I saw it was tagged here as Entry level but some says its a Mid-pro cam... Thanks
By the way, this is a good site... this helps me comparing two bodies...Regarding the topic, I own D300s and D7000 right now... but most of the time I use my D7000 as it has a greater image quality... I made a comparison with my three bodies... D5000, D7000 and D300s.. The quality of image produced in D5000 and D300s is quite similar while the image produced in D7000 body is far more better than the two... I've been in photography for more than 2 years and covered some events and D7000 is far useful for me the D300s... This is my own judgement... :-)

If you're not totally convinced buy a second hand D7000 and try it... if your not happy then sell it again... 
Rselby (2:08 AM, April 15, 2011)
To each, his own! I'm sure the D7000 is an excellent body, after all it's a Nikon. I've heard very good things about IQ, I can't part with my D300 simply because it has many features that suit me. I wish Nikon would have used CF cards in place of SD's. That's what really shifted my ideas about this body, plus the frame rate. If your happy, I'm happy for you!