Do you recommend it? What do you like/not like about it? What do you use it for? I'm in the market for a semi-pro/pro camera and am trying to decide between Canon and Nikon.
I just picked up the D300 a month ago, and love it.
As far as the differences between the D90 and D300, I posed the same question a while back and got some good answers. This might help. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=128717
As far as the D300, I am an avid amateur, aspiring to go semi-pro over the course of the next year or two. I plan to mainly keep it a hobby, but if I can make a few $$$ part time on the side... Cool.
So far, for the $$$ there is NOTHING that I do not like about the D300. I am a former Canon shooter, and just LOVE this thing.
My only error so far, is the D300 does not come with a lens. I bought the generic 18-105mm kit lens with it, and am not really happy with it. Had I to to all over again, I would have saved up a little more and picked up a better mid range lens. The kit lens has a plastic mounting which I am scared will wear out quickly. It does seem to be a decent lens for the money. I'm saving now for a nice 50mm f1.4, and/or a 28-70mm f2.8...
I had a D50 and went to a D300 about a year ago and I love it. In fact there isn't one thing I don't like about it. It's a little expensive, but well worth it. The big draw for me was the fact that it can shoot 7 fps. I shoot a lot of sports action photos and it does a great job. It uses Compact Flash Cards as opposed to SD cards which are also more expensive, but they are bigger and easier to keep up with. If you decide to go with Nikon instead of Canon and can afford the D300 over the D90, I would recommend that you get it.
I've had my D300 since October 2008; I keep my D70 as a standby. The D300 is a dream to handle and use, although the learning curve is pretty steep and there are so many ways to customize all the settings, but that can be said about most of today's DSLRs. Total control over everything, and some… !
The Nikon Creative Lighting System is superb, being so simple to set up, and with the D300 set to Commander, everything can be controlled from the viewfinder, and all without sync chords!
I thought about the D90, but I've no need of video, so for me the D90 was a step in the wrong direction.
Lenses: I already had the 18-70 and 28-200 with the D70, but I added the 18-200 VR, 50mm f1.4 and 105 micro VR. The 18-200 is a bit of a jack-of-all-trades lens, and in some repects the other two zooms are better, but the 18-200 is so convenient! I love the 105 micro, and in very low available light, the 50 f1.4 is hard to beat!
Another thing I love about the D300 is the huge viewing screen (makes the D70 look really tiny when I have to use that camera!)
I use my camera for everything: portraits, sports, landscapes. I started out with a Nikon D50 and moved up to a D90 last fall. The improvements that I noticed above the D50 were: 1. Improved resolution (12MP) 2. Increased shooting speed (4.5 frames per second) 3. Great High ISO performance, up to about 2200 ISO is quite acceptable to me. 4. Nikon CLS commander function with popup camera flash. 5. One button accessibility to most every option. You can change metering modes, ISO, WB, autofocus type, frame rate and many other options without having to dig down into a menu. The one thing I do miss from my D50 is a higher speed flash sync. The D90 only sync to 1/200th, and the D300 1/250th while the D50 was 1/500th.
I looked hard at the D300 before purchasing the D90. At that time, the D300 was running about $600 more. The differences I saw were better/faster autofocus, higher frame rate, and weather sealing. Only the autofocus speed mattered to me, but it was difficult for me to feel that difference side by side. So I saved the $600 for lenses.
I also felt like the D300 was at a price point where I would expect a full frame sensor within 12 months. So my thought was to buy the cheaper body so I could cycle to a new body faster as the technology improved.
Here is a D90 pic at ISO2000 in a very dark Ohio gym just so you can see the noise level.
I have a D90. I recommend it. The D300 may be a better choice for you, but only you can decide that. They're both great cameras. They have the same sensor, so with the same lens the image quality will be identical. If you're a hardcore sports shooter than the D300 is the way to go, with 51 AF points, however I've shot highschool basketball with my D90 and got amazing results that I'm totally pleased with. I'm more of a portrait and landscape photographer though so for me the difference in AF didn't justify the extra $700 or whatever it is.
I've never held a D300 but the D90 fits my hand like a glove, sooo much better than the D40 I had before. I don't use the video mode so that didn't factor into my decision at all. The D90 will control two groups of remote speedlights just like the D300, and it works great. I've hardly used my old ebay triggers and SB28's since upgrading since using my SB900 and 600 is so much simpler and I can control the lights from the camera (if I want to use all four I just put the 28's and 600 on the ebay triggers and put the 900 in SU-4 mode).
For me it was a choice between spending much more on the D300, which for my purposes would be only marginally better, vs. getting the D90 and putting the extra money towards glass, which is more important than the camera anyway. I'm glad that I went with the D90 as I now have an 80-200 2.8 to go along with it which is an amazing lens. Had I bought the 300 I wouldn't have been able to afford this.
I'm saving now for a nice 50mm f1.4, and/or a 28-70mm f2.8...
personally I find even a 24-70(f2.8 of course) NOT wide enuff......may want to consider something like the Siggy 17-70 f2.8-4.5 ....... yeah it is a variable aperture and I think that is its only drawback
I am moving from Konica-Minolta 7D's to Nikon D300 for their low light/high iso capabilities and when the coffers are filled then I will should be ready to move to FULL FRAME.......my reasons for Nikon are pretty simple.....I have a Nikon film body for last ditch back up........Was going to go Oly but I need the Low Light/High Iso the D300 offers at least andI also need the ability to log GPS cordinates as the shutter cliks......i gave canon a long hard look especially after seeing the HUUUUUGE pics BALDY had done and posted on here.....I used Standard GPS units and software for matiching time stamps andit was just a pita .....so decided the logging had to be done when the shutter cliked.........with my library of CF cards I have to stay with cameras that accept them ..............
may want to consider something like the Siggy 17-70 f2.8-4.5 ....... yeah it is a variable aperture and I think that is its only drawback
Thats a pretty fair price... Hows the sharpness, say in comparison to the Nikon 24-70mm (The Beast). It's 1/4 the price... So it does have my attention.
I am really beating myself up for not researching the glass as well as I researched the camera body. I also picked up a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 that totally kicks rear end, but I am still stuck needing something better for wider shots. I won't make this mistake again.:bluduh
Thats a pretty fair price... Hows the sharpness, say in comparison to the Nikon 24-70mm (The Beast). It's 1/4 the price... So it does have my attention.
Enjoy your new D300. I sure do enjoy mine.
From what I have been able to find out the lens is very sharp......it is not an EX lens, but I do not think any of the DG lenses are....that is reserved for the full frame heavier lenses........Hopefully I will know in about a month.....now back to bidding one a couple of D300's
I bought the Sigma 17-70mm along with the D90 as (at the time) my only zoom lens. I have shot many varied scenes from 1:1 macros on up to some sports (girls softball) and so far it's the lens I keep on my D90 most of the time.
As for the D300, I too was comparing between it and the D90. But like Tim I went with the D90 due to price vs my needed features. Plus, the physical size of the D300 put me off a bit.
A Nikon D90 plus some Nikon, Sigma & Tokina lenses.
Thats a pretty fair price... Hows the sharpness, say in comparison to the Nikon 24-70mm (The Beast). It's 1/4 the price... So it does have my attention.
I am really beating myself up for not researching the glass as well as I researched the camera body. I also picked up a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 that totally kicks rear end, but I am still stuck needing something better for wider shots. I won't make this mistake again.:bluduh
Enjoy your new D300. I sure do enjoy mine.
That 80-200mm f2.8 you mention is hard to beat.
For a wider view Take a look at the "kit 18-70mm Nikon", and the 16-85mm VR Nikon.
I've had and used the Kit 18-70 since I got my D200 two years ago, and it is hard to beat overall, and very clean. I also owned a Tammy 17-50mm f 2.8 and it was as sharp or sharper than the Nikon, but just didn't have the magick they put in the Nikon Glass. I liked the field of view difference the 1mm made on the Tamaron but you also had distortion at that end of the range.
If I had $350 to spend: it'd be the 18-70
If I had $650 to spend, it'd be the 16-85 VR
Everyone speaks well of the venerable 24-70mm f2.8 Nikon but for the D300 it may be a bit too long.
Everyone speaks well of the venerable 24-70mm f2.8 Nikon but for the D300 it may be a bit too long.
good luck~
that has been my finding with my SIGGY 24-70....which replaced a 28-70 .....even tho the 4mm made a big difference...it is not enuff for crop sensors...........
THANKS! You guys have been a wealth of information. Sorry about the thread drift to glass, but perhaps this will keep the original poster from making the same mistake as I, if they get the D300.
I am REALLY thinking about that 16-85VR. (it's $300 more, but plastic bayonet mounts scare me) I guess the last issue that I have to confront is the question of do I "need" something that will open up to f2.8 for my shorter lens. This lens has VR, so that should help, right? With the money that I will save by not buying "the beast", I can go grab a 50mm f1.4 also... Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.
Note to the original poster... Make sure that you spend just as much time researching lenses as you do camera bodies.
Comments
As far as the differences between the D90 and D300, I posed the same question a while back and got some good answers. This might help. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=128717
As far as the D300, I am an avid amateur, aspiring to go semi-pro over the course of the next year or two. I plan to mainly keep it a hobby, but if I can make a few $$$ part time on the side... Cool.
So far, for the $$$ there is NOTHING that I do not like about the D300. I am a former Canon shooter, and just LOVE this thing.
My only error so far, is the D300 does not come with a lens. I bought the generic 18-105mm kit lens with it, and am not really happy with it. Had I to to all over again, I would have saved up a little more and picked up a better mid range lens. The kit lens has a plastic mounting which I am scared will wear out quickly. It does seem to be a decent lens for the money. I'm saving now for a nice 50mm f1.4, and/or a 28-70mm f2.8...
http://mlangton.smugmug.com
Caroline
The Nikon Creative Lighting System is superb, being so simple to set up, and with the D300 set to Commander, everything can be controlled from the viewfinder, and all without sync chords!
I thought about the D90, but I've no need of video, so for me the D90 was a step in the wrong direction.
Lenses: I already had the 18-70 and 28-200 with the D70, but I added the 18-200 VR, 50mm f1.4 and 105 micro VR. The 18-200 is a bit of a jack-of-all-trades lens, and in some repects the other two zooms are better, but the 18-200 is so convenient! I love the 105 micro, and in very low available light, the 50 f1.4 is hard to beat!
Another thing I love about the D300 is the huge viewing screen (makes the D70 look really tiny when I have to use that camera!)
Hope this helps -
- Wil
I looked hard at the D300 before purchasing the D90. At that time, the D300 was running about $600 more. The differences I saw were better/faster autofocus, higher frame rate, and weather sealing. Only the autofocus speed mattered to me, but it was difficult for me to feel that difference side by side. So I saved the $600 for lenses.
I also felt like the D300 was at a price point where I would expect a full frame sensor within 12 months. So my thought was to buy the cheaper body so I could cycle to a new body faster as the technology improved.
Here is a D90 pic at ISO2000 in a very dark Ohio gym just so you can see the noise level.
I've never held a D300 but the D90 fits my hand like a glove, sooo much better than the D40 I had before. I don't use the video mode so that didn't factor into my decision at all. The D90 will control two groups of remote speedlights just like the D300, and it works great. I've hardly used my old ebay triggers and SB28's since upgrading since using my SB900 and 600 is so much simpler and I can control the lights from the camera (if I want to use all four I just put the 28's and 600 on the ebay triggers and put the 900 in SU-4 mode).
For me it was a choice between spending much more on the D300, which for my purposes would be only marginally better, vs. getting the D90 and putting the extra money towards glass, which is more important than the camera anyway. I'm glad that I went with the D90 as I now have an 80-200 2.8 to go along with it which is an amazing lens. Had I bought the 300 I wouldn't have been able to afford this.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
personally I find even a 24-70(f2.8 of course) NOT wide enuff......may want to consider something like the Siggy 17-70 f2.8-4.5 ....... yeah it is a variable aperture and I think that is its only drawback
I am moving from Konica-Minolta 7D's to Nikon D300 for their low light/high iso capabilities and when the coffers are filled then I will should be ready to move to FULL FRAME
Thats a pretty fair price... Hows the sharpness, say in comparison to the Nikon 24-70mm (The Beast). It's 1/4 the price... So it does have my attention.
I am really beating myself up for not researching the glass as well as I researched the camera body. I also picked up a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 that totally kicks rear end, but I am still stuck needing something better for wider shots. I won't make this mistake again.:bluduh
Enjoy your new D300. I sure do enjoy mine.
http://mlangton.smugmug.com
From what I have been able to find out the lens is very sharp......it is not an EX lens, but I do not think any of the DG lenses are....that is reserved for the full frame heavier lenses........Hopefully I will know in about a month.....now back to bidding one a couple of D300's
As for the D300, I too was comparing between it and the D90. But like Tim I went with the D90 due to price vs my needed features. Plus, the physical size of the D300 put me off a bit.
For a wider view Take a look at the "kit 18-70mm Nikon", and the 16-85mm VR Nikon.
I've had and used the Kit 18-70 since I got my D200 two years ago, and it is hard to beat overall, and very clean. I also owned a Tammy 17-50mm f 2.8 and it was as sharp or sharper than the Nikon, but just didn't have the magick they put in the Nikon Glass. I liked the field of view difference the 1mm made on the Tamaron but you also had distortion at that end of the range.
If I had $350 to spend: it'd be the 18-70
If I had $650 to spend, it'd be the 16-85 VR
Everyone speaks well of the venerable 24-70mm f2.8 Nikon but for the D300 it may be a bit too long.
good luck~
that has been my finding with my SIGGY 24-70....which replaced a 28-70 .....even tho the 4mm made a big difference...it is not enuff for crop sensors...........
THANKS! You guys have been a wealth of information. Sorry about the thread drift to glass, but perhaps this will keep the original poster from making the same mistake as I, if they get the D300.
I am REALLY thinking about that 16-85VR. (it's $300 more, but plastic bayonet mounts scare me) I guess the last issue that I have to confront is the question of do I "need" something that will open up to f2.8 for my shorter lens. This lens has VR, so that should help, right? With the money that I will save by not buying "the beast", I can go grab a 50mm f1.4 also... Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.
Note to the original poster... Make sure that you spend just as much time researching lenses as you do camera bodies.
http://mlangton.smugmug.com