D50 to D90 or D300... HELP!!!

TexPhotog

Howdy fellow DGrinners... I am in a bind here and need some of the awesome and valuable advise from y'all...

After 4 awesome years using my trusty D50, I had an incident on Tuesday night that may send my kid to Nikon Hospital... and because it's such an elder in the DSLR family, I'm afraid that Nikon may say it will cost me more to repair than to replace

Here's the short end of the story... I am covering the CES and AEE/AVN shows here in Vegas. There was an incident at an after party press event in which some drunk people kind of bumped/fell/crushed me and my D50.

I tried my best to cover my camera, but in the end, it landed pretty hard on a hard floor. I'm pretty amazed that the only visible physical damage is that the battery door opened up and the battery came halfway out.
I had the stock 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 lens on it and I'm still pretty amazed that it didn't crack.

Anyways, to try to make a short story shorter, once I got up and was able to look up close to my camera and lens, I now hear a rattle noise inside both, the 18-55 lens and inside the camera body itself :cry :cry :cry

I had been looking to upgrade to a newer body and keep my D50 as a back up body, and was very VERY tempted to get the D80 when it came out, but I kept saying, something better will come along...

I was again very VERY tempted when the D300 came out, but again... since my D50 worked fine, I was actually trying to save my $$$ for the 70-200mm 2.8 lens... like the saying goes... "it's the glass that matters... not the body".

So now here is my main dilema... I've been researching the D300 for a while now... it seems like an awesome body... able to take the D80's grip... basically, a D3 without the FX sensor.

I went to Ken R's website and he says that he's dumped his D300 for the D90 (he raved about the D300 when it came out).

I've started to research the D90 and from what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the main difference between the two is the video record feature on the D90... something totally useless to me as I shoot video with a Sony PD170, and other than that, there really is no other difference... I'm not a sports shooter right now, so the fps difference is not a big concern for me at the moment...

BH has the following:

D300 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens for $2079.95
D90 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-200mm VR II Lens for $1469.95

So... which way should I go... D90 and have extra $$$ for better glass or D300 and save again for better glass???

ziggy53

TexPhotog wrote:

...

So now here is my main dilema... I've been researching the D300 for a while now... it seems like an awesome body... able to take the D80's grip... basically, a D3 without the FX sensor.

I went to Ken R's website and he says that he's dumped his D300 for the D90 (he raved about the D300 when it came out).

I've started to research the D90 and from what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the main difference between the two is the video record feature on the D90... something totally useless to me as I shoot video with a Sony PD170, and other than that, there really is no other difference... I'm not a sports shooter right now, so the fps difference is not a big concern for me at the moment...

BH has the following:

D300 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens for $2079.95
D90 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-200mm VR II Lens for $1469.95

So... which way should I go... D90 and have extra $$$ for better glass or D300 and save again for better glass???

The D300 has better autofocus and shutter and faster overall operation. The D300 also has a much better viewfinder. It is still the premier Nikon "crop" camera. The D90 does seem to produce a slightly better image for general photography, but the D300 is much more responsive.

Strapped to a lens like the 18-200mm VR there would be no visible difference in images except if you need the features of the D300.

TexPhotog

ziggy53 wrote:

Strapped to a lens like the 18-200mm VR there would be no visible difference in images except if you need the features of the D300.

Besides the faster response that you mentioned earlier, what other features are you talking about on the D300... and remember, fast response time to me will be an improvement regardless, as I am used to the D50...

ziggy53

TexPhotog wrote:

Besides the faster response that you mentioned earlier, what other features are you talking about on the D300... and remember, fast response time to me will be an improvement regardless, as I am used to the D50...

Here is a link to a side-by-side comparison. Also look at the complete reviews for both cameras. Compare AF systems, shutter ratings, buffer depth, drive rate, etc.:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d300%2Cnikon_d90&show=all

They are both pretty good cameras, so you might consider purchasing the D90 first and if you run into limitations then upgrade to the D300 later.

angevin1

Hey,

Please, no offense, but why buy a body with an inferior lens? I LOVE the range the 18-200VR has, but it, via the test/reviews I've read, is not a SUPERIOR lens. If it is not superior, and it is not NEEDED, then why waste the cash?

I've seen a few deals on DGrin selling this body (D300)...and I'd go that route myself if I couldn't afford new. I see someone in DGrin right now with a D300 for $1100...that's a good deal... New Adorama at $1435 with MSN Live Cash back..

I think a visit to the local camera store is in view here. I like going to best buy too, just cause they have their cams out with those tethers. you can man handle them and see what feels better. As you said, you don't need video.

I admit to not knowing much about the D90. But do remember or just go back and read and you'll see KR has a habit of liking the cheaper cameras when he can.

Get which feels best to you or that you sense is best...and YES save for that SUPERIOR glass!

cheers, tom

Shane422

I made the jump from the D50 to the D90 in October. It is really nice to have buttons for things like metering mode, and autobracketing instead of having to dig deep into the menu system. The "commander" flash control is a huge upgrade, and I use the video much more than I thought I would. The only thing I miss about my D50 is the higher flash sync speed.

I was also thinking hard about the D300, but the difference in features just couldn't sway me to spend the extra money. I also figured a cheaper body would allow me to upgrade sooner and I expect a sub $2K full frame body by the end of 2009.

There is no doubt that the D300 is a bit more professional (better seals, higher frame rate, better autofocus), but the D90 will be a significant upgrade from the D50. Do be aware that the D90 and D300 are no where near as good as the D700, and D3 for ISO performance. I feel pretty good about using an ISO range up to 2000. ISO3200 gets pretty muddy.

TexPhotog

ziggy53 wrote:

They are both pretty good cameras, so you might consider purchasing the D90 first and if you run into limitations then upgrade to the D300 later.

I had seen this before... but it didn't help me... lol... I mean... the main differences from the side by side are:

D300 D90
Sony sensor Unknown sensor
ISO 100-6400 ISO 200-6400
AutoFocus Multicam 3500 DX Multicam1000
Shutter 1/8000 1/4000
TIFF/RAW RAW
CF/MicroDrive SD/SDHC

As for limitations... interesting... I never felt limited by my D50... and it lasted me 4 years... if it hadn't been for what happened... I'd still be shooting with it...

I think my main issue right now is that I want to purchase something that will last me for a while... don't think I can buy and then re-upgrade... I'm not that rich... lol

TexPhotog

angevin1 wrote:

Please, no offense, but why buy a body with an inferior lens? I LOVE the range the 18-200VR has, but it, via the test/reviews I've read, is not a SUPERIOR lens. If it is not superior, and it is not NEEDED, then why waste the cash?

None taken... but can you clarify your point please???

Are you saying that whatever route I go I should just get the body and buy a better lens instead of the kit???

The reason I'm looking at the body/lens kits is because, as I mentioned earlier, my 18-55 lens is also making a rattling noise inside... I don't see any cracks, but I'm going to guesstimate that something is messed up inside the lens itself...

That would leave me with only my also not greatest but trusty 55-200 4-5.6 lens... good for close up stuff... but no wide...

So, my thinking was, new body, new lens which would cover the range that I have; 18-200mm... that is until I can really save up and get my 70-200mm 2.8 =D

jonh68

If you are building a lens system, I don't see a problem with the 18-200. I still use it even though I have better glass. If IQ is critical, you would be better off getting better glass. If you want a general purpose lens, the 18-200 is the one to get.

ziggy53

TexPhotog wrote:

...
Shutter 1/8000 1/4000
...

When you double the shutter speed, it takes 4 times as much energy to control it. The 1/8000th shutter speed implies a much better shutter mechanism in the D300. Even though you might not use the 1/8000th shutter speed the extra quality would indicate a more reliable and durable design.

If you plan to replace the camera in a couple of years, and a lot of people do just that, then the extra durability may not mean as much. If you will not be using the camera very often or through many actuations, then the D90 might make more sense as far as the shutter is concerned.

I'm not saying that one feature should make or break your decision, but you need to consider each detail like this to understand how all of the differences will impact your purchase decision.

The other differences I mentioned are either in the side-by-side or the individual reviews of each camera.

Like I said before, you might be better served by buying the D90 now, since you are unsure. No sense throwing money into a body if you are not sure you need it. Better lenses are a much better overall investment and in 2 years more new bodies will be out for sure, but not that many new lenses. In 2 years it may be time for another body decision anyway.

In the mean time you could be enjoying the D90 and some nice lenses. Yes, the D90 would be a pleasant upgrade to what you have.

M.MoranPhotography

TexPhotog wrote:

Howdy fellow DGrinners... I am in a bind here and need some of the awesome and valuable advise from y'all...

After 4 awesome years using my trusty D50, I had an incident on Tuesday night that may send my kid to Nikon Hospital... and because it's such an elder in the DSLR family, I'm afraid that Nikon may say it will cost me more to repair than to replace

Here's the short end of the story... I am covering the CES and AEE/AVN shows here in Vegas. There was an incident at an after party press event in which some drunk people kind of bumped/fell/crushed me and my D50.

I tried my best to cover my camera, but in the end, it landed pretty hard on a hard floor. I'm pretty amazed that the only visible physical damage is that the battery door opened up and the battery came halfway out.
I had the stock 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 lens on it and I'm still pretty amazed that it didn't crack.

Anyways, to try to make a short story shorter, once I got up and was able to look up close to my camera and lens, I now hear a rattle noise inside both, the 18-55 lens and inside the camera body itself :cry :cry :cry

I had been looking to upgrade to a newer body and keep my D50 as a back up body, and was very VERY tempted to get the D80 when it came out, but I kept saying, something better will come along...

I was again very VERY tempted when the D300 came out, but again... since my D50 worked fine, I was actually trying to save my $$$ for the 70-200mm 2.8 lens... like the saying goes... "it's the glass that matters... not the body".

So now here is my main dilema... I've been researching the D300 for a while now... it seems like an awesome body... able to take the D80's grip... basically, a D3 without the FX sensor.

I went to Ken R's website and he says that he's dumped his D300 for the D90 (he raved about the D300 when it came out).

I've started to research the D90 and from what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the main difference between the two is the video record feature on the D90... something totally useless to me as I shoot video with a Sony PD170, and other than that, there really is no other difference... I'm not a sports shooter right now, so the fps difference is not a big concern for me at the moment...

BH has the following:

D300 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens for $2079.95
D90 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-200mm VR II Lens for $1469.95

So... which way should I go... D90 and have extra $$$ for better glass or D300 and save again for better glass???

I honestly think you would be fine working with a D40, especially since you are coming from a D50, and glass is all that matters, even more than a body (Especially since you said you never found it limiting... the D40 will be ages more advanced for you :P).

And to answer your question, all thats better from a D90, Faster frame rate (which im sure you dont need), no video capabilities (but really, who cares about that right now? :P) and premium compatibility with Ai, and Ais lenses, which Im almost sure you wouldnt have. If you need any of the key features of the D300, go for it. But im almost positive you'd be just as happy with a D40 or D60 and some better glass.

TLDR for lenses: If I were you right now, I'd get a D40, 16-85 used, and 70-200, or 80-200 used. that should run you about $1600 total, 1800 ish depending how you get the 70-200. (and I'd try to get a 50mm f/1.8.)

P.S. and Id sell your d50 as scrap, should net you enough money to buy a used 50mm prime.

TexPhotog

M.MoranPhotography wrote:

I honestly think you would be fine working with a D40, especially since you are coming from a D50, and glass is all that matters, even more than a body (Especially since you said you never found it limiting... the D40 will be ages more advanced for you :P).

TLDR for lenses: If I were you right now, I'd get a D40, 16-85 used, and 70-200, or 80-200 used. that should run you about $1600 total, 1800 ish depending how you get the 70-200. (and I'd try to get a 50mm f/1.8.)

P.S. and Id sell your d50 as scrap, should net you enough money to buy a used 50mm prime.

Fromt what I read on dpreview, this is a deal breaker on the D40 and D40x:

"As with the D40 the D40X doesn't have an built-in focus drive motor which means it can auto focus only with lenses which have their own drive motor (AF-S and AF-I lenses). "

two slow

Seems I have more questions than answers. What do you generally shoot? Either of the camers would be a major upgrade to the D50. Also weight may be something to consider too.
Is the 55-200 you have the VR version? The VR version is capable of excellent pictures.
Do you mind buying used? I've been seeing the D300 ranging from $1000 to $1150.
I don't see the D90 often enough to know a good used price for it.
There is still some lightly used D50s around too. $250 to $300 range.
There are many quality options for replacing your 18-55 lens.
Sigma 18-50mm, Tamrons 17-50mm, Nikons 16-85mm just to name a few.
I'm not a fan of the 18-200mm. Just a personal preference.

TexPhotog

two slow wrote:

Seems I have more questions than answers. What do you generally shoot? Either of the camers would be a major upgrade to the D50. Also weight may be something to consider too.
Is the 55-200 you have the VR version? The VR version is capable of excellent pictures.
Do you mind buying used? I've been seeing the D300 ranging from $1000 to $1150.
I don't see the D90 often enough to know a good used price for it.
There is still some lightly used D50s around too. $250 to $300 range.
There are many quality options for replacing your 18-55 lens.
Sigma 18-50mm, Tamrons 17-50mm, Nikons 16-85mm just to name a few.
I'm not a fan of the 18-200mm. Just a personal preference.

Well... let's see...

I shoot news, events, some portraits/model shoots, concerts... no weddings (I can't stand them, but I also respect the awesome people that are brave enough to do them)

Weight is not an issue... since I've worked in both news fields (TV and print), I'm used to carrying 50-75lbs of gear with me regardless... he!!... I've even shot both still and video when I've had the chance...

No, my 50-200mm is not the VR version... it is the original one that came with my D50 18-55/55-200 kit back in the day...

Used is something that totally doesn't go with me... I know of people that absolutely love ebay and such, but I just don't have the guts for that kind of a thrill ride (although, yes, I know that I can also get bad gear from BH and/or Adorama... but I think it's a psychological thing that I have in which I feel safer buying new even if its more expensive... I can at least always go back and say, hey, this was new and it doesn't work... change it... please...)

I'm kind of the same about Sigma/Tamron glass... I rather stick to Nikon glass for now...

As for the all-in-one 18-200 VR 3.5-5.6 lens... I did read up on DPReview about it and as a wide lens, it seems to work great... as a close up, the same... but it is the mid-range (85-150mm area) that the lens seems to not be at its best... so now that also has me thinking...

TexPhotog

Bump... and still undecided...
Ok, I know some of you that have posted are going to think I'm nuts... but...

I still haven't bought either camera yet... and I'm still debating on the
18-200 VR lens...

But now, here's my new dilema...

I am going on a trip to Egypt/Jordan in October... sun/heat/desert/sand... oh my...

So... here's the new dilema...

I really hate the fact that the video on the D90 sucks... but it is cheaper than the D300...

The D300 has the weather seals, which will help for the desert where I'll be...

If I get the D90 with the 18-200 VR lens, the lens would not come off the body, so not much issue as far as the weather seals (right???)

If I get the D300 with the 18-200 VR lens, I'd have a more "pro" body, but with older specs than the D90... and I'd wouldn't have to deal with a feature I wouldn't use at all (video)...

I'm still as confused as before... or maybe even more now...

Jwar

Go with the D90, It will be a step up from the D50 you had. It has video, but you don't have to use it. It's cheaper and it's also a newer model.

MLangton

I had to make EXACTLY the same choice a few months ago. I remained mostly undecided to the end, and erred toward the conservative side, getting the D-300. Like yourself, I was unsure if I'd outgrow the D-90 in a year or so. Looking back, I don't think I'd have outgrown the D-90, but I KNOW that I won't outgrow the D-300 anytime soon. The D-300 just looks and feels much better built. This will be the last camera that I buy until I move to full frame. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=128717

So, would I do it all over again? Not sure. I am 100% happy with the D-300. I love it. It does everything and more that I ever thought it would. My ONLY reservation though is for the savings of a D-90, I could have bought better glass. I ended up with a kit lens. While VERY happy with the camera, my kit glass could not keep up. It was like putting a four cylinder engine in a Ford Mustang. I ended up selling the kit lens, and getting a much better one. I'm still saving for "The Beast".

NO REGRETS at all though. I love the D-300. Just remember... You can take better pictures with good glass and a cheaper camera, than you can with a great camera and cheap glass. Ask me, I learned the hard way.

bandgeekndb

MLangton wrote:

Just remember... You can take better pictures with good glass and a cheaper camera, than you can with a great camera and cheap glass. Ask me, I learned the hard way.

agree

I bought a D40 last year, and I loved it. Did a lot of great things with the kit lens. Then, I bought myself a 17-55 f/2.8 (Sigma, not Nikon), and I am so much more thrilled with the performance of my camera. Now, I have the D90, along with the good glass, and I'm even happier. If you have a fixed budget, my vote is for the D90 and some kick-butt glass. The 18-200 gets mixed reviews, I would invest in a good compromise, like a 17-55 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8, both reasonable from Sigma or Tamron, or save up and get one or the other from Nikon.

Unless you know you are going to benefit from the features of the D300, such as high speed shutter, or increased shutter longevity, etc., I would get a new D90, body only, and get a good lens, or two to go with it and enjoy enough camera to hold you over until you're ready for a D300 body. Then, you already have good glass to go with an even better camera body!

Hope this helps,
~Nick

Himmelblau

Hi,

I am facing the same decision regarding which body to purchase.

I would advise against the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, I have owned two the first was soft and the second suffered from lens creep, (lens sprint in my case) as it does not have a lock switch on the lens.

I can recommend Sigma EX lenses and the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS / HSM Lens, (has a lens lock switch) it has the same specifications as the Nikon minus the Active VR mode (but will you be taking photos from a boat that is bobbing up and down?)

Regards,

Brian

TexPhotog

That's what bothers me about the 18-200 lens... the mixed reviews... it's so 50/50 that it drives me crazy... if it was at least 60/40 or more then it would make it easier...

As for the lens creep, most reviews that I've read, good or bad do mention that, which doesn't bother me that much...

My "beast" as someone called it is the 2.8 70-200... but @ $1700 it's still way out of my price range...

I just wish I could really play with both camera's @ a local shop...

Art Scott

I was moving from Konica Minolta to new brand....went Nikon as i truly wanted the GPS ability of the upper crop cams.....and the D300 was the final winner do to the life expectancy of the shutter (150-200k).....I got 2 used bodies on with the 18-200VR and one that is awaiting the arrival of a BIGMA (arrives tomorrow).....so far the 18-200 has done well for me.....but I find the focus can be fooled by blades of grass at 75-200 yrds shooting turkeys in a combined wheat field........but that could be operator error on how i have the focus points selected also...still learning this fantastic cam system.................
I also bought a Square trade Warranty for my D300+18-200 I got off ebay......less than 1k on the shutter and paid less than 2k for the combo..also got MB D10, UV filter, CF card and cabless and books+D300 BOOK by David Busch...............there are good deals out there if you are patient and just look.............for an EGYPT trip I would go with no less than a D300 just for the ruggedness + invest in a small GPS/W cable for shooting over there to record exact location into EXIF FILES.......................

ziggy53

Himmelblau wrote:

Hi,

I am facing the same decision regarding which body to purchase.

I would advise against the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, I have owned two the first was soft and the second suffered from lens creep, (lens sprint in my case) as it does not have a lock switch on the lens.

I can recommend Sigma EX lenses and the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS / HSM Lens, (has a lens lock switch) it has the same specifications as the Nikon minus the Active VR mode (but will you be taking photos from a boat that is bobbing up and down?)

Regards,

Brian

Brian, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for relating your experiences.