D90 vs D300

[feldy]

I use my camera for my job, but I wouldn't classify myself as a professional photographer [those who know me, know I publish a magazine, and use a lot of my own photography in it]. A previously proud owner of the D300 [and D200 and D70 before that] I recently bought a D90 plus 50mm G, as I need a smaller, less intrusive body and low-light capability [F1.4] for shooting natural light in cafes.

While I love the D300, I have to say that I can see very few reasons for anyone starting out to go for the D300 over the D90. It may have slightly better weatherproofing and 52 odd focus points instead of 11, but I have to say those are inconsequential to me, and the D90 is a wonderful - & for my uses, superior - unit .

Alas I can see the D300 gathering dust from now on!

A

[petermmc]

Feldy,

I think you make a good point. Nikon's line up is a bit confusing at the moment. The D90 has many of the specs of the D300 and some of us would probably never use any of the D300 extra options anyway. I guess that is why the D300 and for that matter the D200 came out before their equivalent megapixel but less specked deputies (the D90 and D80 respectively).

Imagine if they released the D90 before the D300. Many who had the D200 would have kept it and simply bought the D90 for the times when they considered needing a few more pixels and a much better viewing screen. I think that the future will be interesting to see if Nikon actually maintains a semi pro kind of body on a DX camera.

I own a D200 and, if I now upgraded, would give the D90 a serious consideration rather than the D300. How quickly cameras these days become obsolete or redundant is amazing. Marketing has a lot to answer for. At the end of the day when you drop a D90 or a D300 onto a concrete floor they are both going to suffer serious damage (especially if you are a really tall person...standing on a ladder).

I probably left the topic here a bit but I mentioned both cameras enough times to suggest I may have made a mild contribution to this discussion.

Regards

[Grev]

The AF fine tune is one thing that is overlooked. I like the D90 as well but it won't work with my manual focus lenses. So those 2 are my reasons I think the D300 is better. I would like video on the D300 though.

[aim54x]

I have used the D90 a fair bit and have to admit that I like it, but the D300 suits me better even though I hardly ever process the 14-bit raw, use the 51 af points or machine gun with 8fps...BUT it feels better in my hands and I love the quick access to all the controls (AF modes, metering modes etc)

[Grev]

I have used the D90 a fair bit and have to admit that I like it, but the D300 suits me better even though I hardly ever process the 14-bit raw, use the 51 af points or machine gun with 8fps...BUT it feels better in my hands and I love the quick access to all the controls (AF modes, metering modes etc)

I don't use the 51 af points tracking or the 8fps either, I do use the 14 bit raw though, can get better shadow detail ultimately.

The D300 would ultimately be a better camera but the D90 really isn't far behind.

[ATJ]

It's all about choice and what people need or use for their photography.

I bought my D300 before the D90 was available. If I was to buy now, I'd probably still get the D300 as I can't live without the 51 AF points for underwater work.

My only worry would be would I know I need the 51 AF points if I hadn't had them in the first place? I know on paper, the D300's 51 AF points was a huge leap over the D70's 5 (which was a severe limitation).

[pwoo]

Hi,

I am new here. I want to upgrade from the D50 and has been thinking about the D90 vs D300 / D300s. I has been missing shots because the D50 AF is not fast enough (it's shutter release is always 'focus priority'). My usual subjects are my kids, and they are moving too fast for the D50. I borrowed a friend's D90 for a few test shots. I used a slow lens (Tamron 18-200mm), focus on a nearby leaf that was moving in the wind, the background was either green grass or distant people walking pass. I was using AF-C, the D90 followed the leaf most of the time while the D50 have difficulties for both the initial lock on and continuous tracking. I particular like the 3D tracking on the D90, where the AF point moves with the subject. So I was very excited. Unfortunately when I got home and tried the D90 on the kids, it did not do as well as I hope. For 'head shot', I found that there are not enough AF points to track the eye (my baby is very active when happy, and that's the expression I wanted). By the way, I changed to the faster AF-S 24-85 for the test on the kids, this is my main day-to-day lens. So that bring me to the D300/D300s, the only problem is the D300s cost twice as much (if I buy it this month). The AF fine tuning is another feature that I would like, especially after my ordeal with the back focusing Tamron 28-75. And then there are the multiple shooting banks for quick configuration changes.

There are probably other ways/techniques to deal with my problem, but I am using it as the excuse to get a new camera.

Such a long first post.

Regards,
Patrick.

[feldy]

Hi Patrick - as Anthony said above, it depends what you want to use your unit for; I started with a D300 and now am the happy owner of a D90. Have to say I think it's fantastic, and if it had been released [or announced] earlier, I would definitely have gone for it instead of the D300.

For me the 52 point thing is just not important. It's got the same, or better chip [apparently it's made by Nikon, instead of Sony as per the D300] and it's just a fantastically compact but robust unit. All I can say is, i would definitely recommend it and considering it's price, wouldn't even consider the D300 if I had my time again, but as I said above, it depends what you want to use it for!

-A

[feldy]

Actually Patrick - one extra comment [those who know me know I'm never backward in coming forward] - unless you had a major need for the 52 point auto focus, I can't really see any reason why anyone would bother with a D300 these days, especially when the D90 is pretty much half the price!

For me the ideal combination would be a D700 as prime body, with the D90 as back up and suitable for situations [a lot] where I need the smaller size and lighter weight!

A

[Matt. K]

pwoo
Firstly...Welcome to the forum! If you create a new post and call it "new member' or something then you will get a lot of welcomes from a lot of members. Because your first post is buried in someone else's then many will miss it. It's always nice to say Hi to a newbie. Second.....if thinking of buying a camera then you can't go past a D300 or D300s. They are professional quality and will last you for many years. If the camera is slightly out of your budget then maybe check for second-hand D300.....some folk are upgrading to D700 and so a few D300s are around.

[LaurieE]

I went through this dilemma last year.

at the end of the day - I did not have the money to spend on the d300 and felt that the d90 was a good compromise for my skill level and cost. I could not in good conscience "justify" the extra cost to the minister of finance.

the d300(s) is feature rich (settings, buttons, customisations, not to mention the extra autofocus points and better weatherproofing) but I would not have known what to do with many of those features 12 months ago and I am only just starting to use many of the d90 features so it was a good choice for me.

I suppose it comes down to where you are in your photography journey.

of course settling on a d90 gives me "justification" to upgrade to the next generation of a d700 down the track in a year or two

[jaff]

I too went through this dilema,.......spend the extra $1000 now on a d300/d300s or get the d90 and use the extra $1000 for some additional glass.
Thinking long term I spent the extra $ on the d300s and will, as my skills develop aquire the extra glass as needed......but gud-dam it I want to buy just about every lens NOW!
Lensitis I can feel its ever present grip, the insatiable desire to collect all manor of expensive glass things!

Patrick, its a vexing decision but theres probably a voice inside of your head that keeps whispering, buy the d300s, buy the d300s and in my case I also had the voice (Minister of finance) whispering "YOU WANT TO SPEND HOW MUCH" but I think my begging and crying eventually wore her down

With either purchase,I am sure you will be happy,........but wouldn't you be, just that lil bit more happy with a.......

Cheers Rob

[LaurieE]

...
Thinking long term I spent the extra $ on the d300s ...

its interesting how we all think very differently. thinking long term - I opted to buy some accessories (speedlight, lenses etc) rather than spending more money on the camera figuring that the body would be superseded in a couple of years ...

mind you - the d300s looks nice

[jaff]

Your right laurie,I figured that I could get the accessories piece meal, as required once the body was purchased sorta like Christmas every couple of months and besides I could always tell the minister that "Yeh Ive had this manfroto tripod for years, you just dont pay any attention"

[aim54x]

It is an interesting debate whether to speed the extra $1000 on the body or on lenses and accessories. If I was moving up now from a D40x + 18-135mm (what I had when I decided to go up to the D300....when it first became available) then the D90 would be very intriguing...as would the cry for full frame.

Going the D90 over the D300s would mean I have an extra 1000 to get something decent in terms of glass....Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

It is really hard to believe that I have managed to pick up so much glass over the last two years.....I dont know what i would do without it.

[pwoo]

I do like to get my hand on a few more lens, Tokina 50-135 f2.8, Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR, or the AF-S 105 f2.8. But the D50 AF is my main concern at the moment. I have the D50 since 2005, so upgrading the body make more sense to my wife (she already think I have too many lens - only 4 and they each serve different purpose I would say).

I have refused my wife's offer to buy me a massage chair ($2000+) multiple times, I often have back/shoulder pain. I will try to divert the 'good will' to the D300s. Things we do for our hobby....

Regards,
Patrick.

[aim54x]

$2000 massage chair.....get me a D300s instead...I am sure that will go down well (I am thinking the massage chair would be more shared than the camera).

As for new glass....depending of what you have already then it may be better for you to get both a lens (with the $1000 diff) and a D90. Your call though.

[losfp]

It really depends on how you shoot.

I bought the D300 before the D90 came out, but for what I normally shoot (sports and wildlife), I would still go for the D300 for the following reasons:

- More robust construction
- More solid battery grip with built in joystick thingie
- More buttons and switches to do.. stuff. Change bracketing, # of AF points, continuous shooting speed etc
- Faster shooting, 8fps against 4.5 fps
- Larger buffer (17 RAW against 7 RAW)
- 51 AF points

If those things don't matter to you(and they don't if I am shooting events or portraits or landscapes), then the D90 might be a better choice.....

[surenj]

pwoo, if you get the D300 you will need that massage chair as well. Unless you let someone else carry it.

[LaurieE]

Your right laurie,I figured that I could get the accessories piece meal, as required once the body was purchased sorta like Christmas every couple of months and besides I could always tell the minister that "Yeh Ive had this manfroto tripod for years, you just dont pay any attention"

I like your thought process - brilliant