WTB: Nikon D-90 or D-300???

MLangton

Greetings,

I used to be a very avid amateur, and aspiring pro a few years ago in the 35mm days. I have been shooting with a Nikon S-4 pocket digital for the last few years, and am FINALLY going to get back into serious amateur photography. Hopefully I'll be good enough to go pro someday... Hopefully.

My dilemma, the Nikon D-90 or D-300??? (sigh) I love them both but can only afford one. My likes are mainly landscapes, wildlife, macros, with some action and portraits thrown in. So, 90% of everything that I shoot is outdoors, with various lighting conditions.

Are the extra features on the 300 worth the extra $1000? I am willing to pay this if I am going to use everything.

Thanks in advance.

ziggy53

MLangton wrote:

Greetings,

I used to be a very avid amateur, and aspiring pro a few years ago in the 35mm days. I have been shooting with a Nikon S-4 pocket digital for the last few years, and am FINALLY going to get back into serious amateur photography. Hopefully I'll be good enough to go pro someday... Hopefully.

My dilemma, the Nikon D-90 or D-300??? (sigh) I love them both but can only afford one. My likes are mainly landscapes, wildlife, macros, with some action and portraits thrown in. So, 90% of everything that I shoot is outdoors, with various lighting conditions.

Are the extra features on the 300 worth the extra $1000? I am willing to pay this if I am going to use everything.

Thanks in advance.

MLangton, welcome to the Digital Grin.

The minute you say "action" you might appreciate the extra features of the Nikon D300. I believe you can find the D300 for around $800 more than the D90. For that extra money you get:

A better shutter mechanism with up to 1/8000th (vs 1/4000th on the D90)
Multi-CAM3500 DX autofocus vs Multi-CAM1000, the Multi-CAM3500 DX is very similar to the AF section in the D3/D3x pro cameras.
Much better shooting rate with 6 fps standard and up to 8 fps with the optional grip and battery.
More weather sealed body
CF card storage with UDMA support
Deeper shot buffer
Faster flash sync, 1/250th vs 1/200th

For sports/action I do think the D300 is more appropriate, but in the other situations you mentioned the D90 is very competent.

MLangton

Thanks!

I think I'd be happy with the 90, but the little voice in my head says to just get the 300. (That little voice does not have bills to pay).

This is the way I am leaning. I appreciate the feedback.

Ekaj

I just sold a d300 to finance my d700. I would go with a d90 over the d300. The sensor is the same. Sure you lose some fps and a few other very small things, but otherwise they are virtually identical.

The money you save can go towards getting some decent glass, which is what you will really need.

MLangton

Ekaj wrote:

The money you save can go towards getting some decent glass, which is what you will really need.

Yes... This is the reason that I keep thinking that the 90 might be the way to go, even though I am leaning towards the 300. Decisions decisions.

The good news... It's going to be the middle to end of May before I can scrape up the cash for the 300, so I have a few weeks to do more research and keep thinking. THANKS! I'm all ears on this one. I just want to do it RIGHT the FIRST time.

Mav

I'm a complete n00bie but my G/F bought me a D90 for my birthday last week. I took some sporting pics at the weekend that seemed to come out pretty good considering I have no idea what I'm doing!





In the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, I'm sure the D90 would a great camera... I'm certainly loving it

Tiziano

The only reason I bought a D90 over the D300 is size. I'm 5'10" and don't have the largest hands (they seem quite normal to me). Anyway, I held a D300 and it seemed too large for me. The D60 was too small but the D90 was just right.

I suppose it's all in what one gets used to. Should I find that I'm making money on this venture, well then I'll likely move up.

davidweaver

As the owner of 3 D300s I might suggest a D5000. I'm getting one later this week or next (whenever the local camera store gets it in). I'm going to use it as my secondary back up and as my main panoramic-rig camera.

The dpreview on the D5000 is here:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond5000/
The one on the D300 is here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/
Rockwell does his justice here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm

When I get the camera and if I can get any free time I'll tryto write up a quick paragraph review of it when compared to a D300 for what I use it for.


Cheers,
David

Tiziano wrote:

The only reason I bought a D90 over the D300 is size. I'm 5'10" and don't have the largest hands (they seem quite normal to me). Anyway, I held a D300 and it seemed too large for me. The D60 was too small but the D90 was just right.

I suppose it's all in what one gets used to. Should I find that I'm making money on this venture, well then I'll likely move up.

MLangton

So... Here I sit a week later, and have just scratched most of the hair off of my head. I'm still leaning towards the D300, BUT;

I can get an extra lens if I get the D90. Remember, the 300 comes with none.

1. What I am left pondering is this... How much better of a picture am I going to be able to take with the 300 as opposed to the 90??? Remember, 90-95% of everything that I am going to do will be mostly landscape/wildlife stuff. Some (little) portrait/action thrown in for fun. I will use good glass on either one. I have seen what crap lenses do.

2. If I get the 90, will I end up wishing that I got the 300 a few months later as I start pushing my limits???

3. If I am shooting outdoors a lot in high humidity, am I going to wish that I had the better weather sealing for the 300, or is there that much of a difference???

I don't want to get the 90 if I am going to out grow it in a year or less. If only the 300 came with a piece of glass... :

I'm going to take the plunge in the next week or two. I really miss not having a nice SLR. I can't wait to get back into it.

ziggy53

MLangton,

The image is formed by the lens(es). If you have to choose between a camera and no lenses and a camera with one lens, the choice is rather easy. It is still a similar choice between a camera with one lens and a camera with 2 lenses. You will miss the extra lens before you will miss the capabilities of the more advanced camera body.

Will you have regrets over not having the better body? Only time will tell. In the meantime you can enjoy the D90 and a couple of good lenses.

Who knows, maybe you can even earn some money with the D90 and purchase an additional body.

BTW, light is even more important than either lens or camera. Be sure to budget some for a decent flash and modifiers.

Experience is the final piece of the puzzle as we have some members doing wonderful imagery with minimal equipment. Learn, explore, experiment and grow, every day. In the end "you" will make more of a difference in your photography than all the equipment in the world.

MLangton

Thanks Ziggy,

You are correct. I came up with option "C" last night which is to just wait another month or two and get the D300. I may just go this route. I'll sleep on it a few more nights and go from there. I've been without a nice SLR for so long now, that another month or two will not kill me. It will hurt real bad though...

Option "D" is the Visa card... But I better not do that. I've learned that lesson before.

Thanks for the great ideas and help so far. By the end of the summer, I hope to be a regular on this forum.

studio1972

Have you thought about the D700.

If I was buying a Nikon that's the one I'd go for.

Sorry

MLangton

I refused to even pick up the 700 when I went shopping. I knew that I'd want it.

Honestly, as I am just getting back into SLR photography from a ten year involuntary break, I think the D300 will do the trick. The D90 will probably do the trick.

I have to put my foot down somewhere. If I were to consider the D700, I'd just sell the motorcycle and get the D3x. While I have reservation about the D90, I am sure that the D300 will take me a year or three before (if) I grow out of it.

I am loving the idea about getting back into photography. My last rig was a Canon T-90 (35mm). I am loving the digital age.

<---- As a casualty of having a few grand in Canon FD lenses, I'll never buy another Canon product again.

DsrtVW

I have the opposite problem of you I have big hands so the D300 feels great to me. I do like the D90 but the D300 is just so more robust. I would not give up the AF capabilities of the 300 over the 90.
Plus you get the built in flash CLS commander mode with the D300 to control remote speedlights using the built in flash which I find great in doing portraits and group shots with my sb-600 sb-900 off camera.
Plus all the older lenses that you can get great deals on that work well with the D300
I think in the long run the D300 would serve you better. But I am biased.
The D90 is no slouch it will take captures on par with quality with the 300 but it will just do things the 90 wont, except video.

Qarik

DsrtVW wrote:

I have the opposite problem of you I have big hands so the D300 feels great to me. I do like the D90 but the D300 is just so more robust. I would not give up the AF capabilities of the 300 over the 90.
Plus you get the built in flash CLS commander mode with the D300 to control remote speedlights using the built in flash which I find great in doing portraits and group shots with my sb-600 sb-900 off camera.
Plus all the older lenses that you can get great deals on that work well with the D300
I think in the long run the D300 would serve you better. But I am biased.
The D90 is no slouch it will take captures on par with quality with the 300 but it will just do things the 90 wont, except video.

FYI the D90 does have onboard commander mode with built in flash

DsrtVW

oops my bad. I could not find it in the specs on the website. It is such a cool feature lets you use you speedlights off cameras controlled by the built in flash.
Pick up both cameras and play with them go to a good shop that will let you give m a test drive and buy the one that feels the most comfortable to you.
But make sure you put the D300 on 51 point AF with 3D tracking and follow moving targets.

NikonsandVstroms

MLangton wrote:

I refused to even pick up the 700 when I went shopping. I knew that I'd want it. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Honestly, as I am just getting back into SLR photography from a ten year involuntary break, I think the D300 will do the trick. The D90 will probably do the trick.

I have to put my foot down somewhere. If I were to consider the D700, I'd just sell the motorcycle and get the D3x. While I have reservation about the D90, I am sure that the D300 will take me a year or three before (if) I grow out of it.

I am loving the idea about getting back into photography. My last rig was a Canon T-90 (35mm). I am loving the digital age. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

<---- As a casualty of having a few grand in Canon FD lenses, I'll never buy another Canon product again.

First of all DO NOT SELL THE MOTORCYCLE <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/deal.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Now for your camera debate:
You were wise not to pick up the D700, my nikon mount DSLR's are currently a D700 and S5 Pro (D200 Body) and I loved the S5's viewfinder which is close to the same as the D300, then I used the D700 for a bit and the S5 seemed small.
I also have experience with the D50 and D70 which have similar control set ups to the D90, and the D300's is just a much nicer system to use. Having a lot of the controls be specific physical switches on the body makes using the camera a lot easier. On the D90 the need to go through more menus.
Image quality will be pretty close
Autofocus is better on the 300, but the 90's is great too
The reasons for going to the 300 are MF lenses and the better build/control interface.

Oh and about that D700, unless you plan to in really low light it does not have much of an advantage, but in low light it is amazing

Cygnus Studios

The difference in the quality of the image will be none. What you may end up missing is discussed in Ziggy's first response.

MLangton

Thanks guys!!

OK, I took a deep breath, thought about it and went with the 300. I absolutely love it. The downside is that I will have to wait a while before I can afford a nice 200mm lens... The good side, WHEN I can afford that lens, I am going to have a great set up.

This thing is soooo much more advanced than my old T-90 was. The learning curve on this camera is like drinking out of a fire hose. I am getting the hang of it though. I cant wait to start using some of the more advanced features. I have been playing with this for hours a day.

Thanks for all the great advice.

bandgeekndb

Congrats on your new toy! Now, get yourself a nicer strap for that thing! My nikon strap is gathering dust in a drawer since I got my Smugmug strap! So comfy!

Enjoy that learning curve...I can't wait till I can afford that learning curve!

~Nick

ziggy53

Congratulations indeed. The Nikon D300 is a wonderful camera.

MLangton

Most of the advice here seems to be spot on, so I pose my next question. What telephoto?

As much as I would like to afford a Nikkor, that's not going to happen unless I win the lottery. I am leaning on getting the Sigma 70-200 f2.8...

I have read a few reviews, as well as trying this and the Tamaron in the camera store. I hear the Tamaron is slower (noticeably for me) but slightly sharper. The Sigma seems to me as the better choice.

So... Is the Tamaron that much sharper to where I would notice? If so, how much sharper. I just ask because the motor in the Tamaron seems about as slow as molasses in January. I could deal with this though if the pictures will come out that much better. Otherwise, I'll probably save up for the sigma.

ziggy53

MLangton wrote:

...

So... Is the Tamaron that much sharper to where I would notice? If so, how much sharper. I just ask because the motor in the Tamaron seems about as slow as molasses in January. I could deal with this though if the pictures will come out that much better. Otherwise, I'll probably save up for the sigma.

In a sports/action venue I think the Sigma is a better choice. The Tamron 70-200mm is sharper wide open (especially at 200mm), but they both improve when stopped down to f4 and beyond. By f4 they are more similar than different.

Also look for a used Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (non-IS). It would be the best of all worlds (unless you need the IS). Mine is very useful even wide open and the AF speed is awesome.

bandgeekndb

Ummmm...Ziggy....

MLangton wrote:

OK, I took a deep breath, thought about it and went with the 300.

Me thinks he's gonna have some trouble with a WHITE lens!

MLangton

bandgeekndb wrote:

Ummmm...Ziggy....

Me thinks he's gonna have some trouble with a WHITE lens!

That was my first thought. Remember, I'm easily confused.

bandgeekndb

I love my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8! I was initially worried, as I never thought I'd be spending $500 on a lens, just for a hobby, but I haven't looked back once.

I'll grab some shots and put them up here in a little bit, to show you how good it is, even in the hands of a total n00b when it comes to sports photography. Luckily, attending a D1 university has it's perks...lots of games to shoot!

bandgeekndb

All taken with my Sigma EX 70-200 f/2.8 lens. EXIF is not attached, so here are the basics: 1/400 or 1/500 at f/2.8 ISO 1600, various focal lengths, on my 6megapixel D40. I did very little sharpening, if any in post-processing. If done, it was only to correct for the results of Noise Ninja.

Also, a full gallery (and full sizes of the below pics) is available (just ignore the non basketball or non danceteam shots at the end) here.



And, one of my favorite...FOUL!



Can't post pics of the Tamron, but I've never regretted my Sigma, FWIW.

Good luck in your hunt for a nice zoom lens!

~Nick

ziggy53

Drat, my apologies. My mind was somewhere else. rolleyes

ziggy53

Getting back to a "Nikon" lens discussion, for a D300 body the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED would make a great match. If you can find a good used copy it is easily one of Nikon's finest. KEH.com currently has several from which to choose.

MLangton

Ziggy, you are awesome. I had not even considered this. Only $200 more than the Sigma... Hmmm. A no brainer if you ask me. I'll have to look at some reviews for this.

MLangton

Ziggy and Seymore really got me thinking. I just went back to the camera store and looked over that Nikon AF 80-200mm lens. WOW!

Yes, I'm sold. The AF Nikkor is only about $300 more than the Sigma. You guys are correct about the quality difference. I can't afford the AF-S any time soon, but this is the next best thing. So, it's official... I'm broke for the rest of the year. :ivar

The good news... I don't have to pay for 35mm processing anymore. I can shoot to my hearts content.