>The D7100 is at least 2-stops better in bad light. That is >huge if you shoot action indoors. The D300 has the same >sensor as my D90, which looks OK to about ISO 1600. My D7000 >is good to about ISO 4000, and usable to about ISO 6400. The >D90/D300 is mush at those ISO's. Also, the 24MP files from >the D7100 can be cropped much deeper and cleaner than the 12MP >files from the D300. > >The D7100 gives you 6FPS at 14-bit/24MP, and 7FPS at >14bit/16MP in crop mode. The D300 is 7FPS at 12bit/12MP, >without the grip. To me, that is advantage D7100. IMO, >unless you drive nails with your camera, "build >quality" is a wash. The D7100 is weather sealed, and >mostly a magnesium body. > >All of that said, if you don't crop, and don't shoot action in >low light (or anything above ISO 1600), then all of those >"handling" advantages of the D300 may be meaningful >enough to sacrifice the dynamic range advantage of the D7100
So far no comment on your reasoning, but this last sentence raises my eyebrows:
>for a D300 and it's lower price.
On every Nikon site, a brand new D300 has a higher price than the D7100. I believe you are referring to used prices? In any cases, if the sacrifice is made, it is not for the lower price. I would phrase that as having significant benefits at a lower price, even though I am no fan of the D7100