Is a D300 more than I need?

heatherk9

I am an avid hobbyist but I take photos of one subject only: shelter animals. I use the photographs to tell their stories and get them adopted. I take about 1000 photos a month and they are normally only printed at 4x6. Since the little buggers never hold still, I'm not setting up shots. I just click away and usually end up with 1 good (i.e. lucky) shot for ten bad ones. I have to use the lighting that's available and I often have to turn off the flash so I sometimes shoot at high ISO.

I'm using a D70 right now with a Nikkor 18-200. I've been preparing large prints for my first exhibition and, in doing so, I've decided I would really benefit from a camera with better performance at higher ISO, better low light performance, and the ability to make nice, large prints. I've been shooting jpegs but I would prefer to switch to RAW.

I've looked at the D90 and the D300 and I'm torn between the two only because I can find a used D300 for only about $400 more than a used D90. I would have picked the D90 without a second thought if the price gap was greater. $400 isn't a small amount, but amortized over the life of the equipment it doesn't seem so bad.

I would appreciate any opinions.

Thanks! Heather

NikonsandVstroms

heatherk9 wrote:

I am an avid hobbyist but I take photos of one subject only: shelter animals. I use the photographs to tell their stories and get them adopted. I take about 1000 photos a month and they are normally only printed at 4x6. Since the little buggers never hold still, I'm not setting up shots. I just click away and usually end up with 1 good (i.e. lucky) shot for ten bad ones. I have to use the lighting that's available and I often have to turn off the flash so I sometimes shoot at high ISO.

I'm using a D70 right now with a Nikkor 18-200. I've been preparing large prints for my first exhibition and, in doing so, I've decided I would really benefit from a camera with better performance at higher ISO, better low light performance, and the ability to make nice, large prints. I've been shooting jpegs but I would prefer to switch to RAW.

I've looked at the D90 and the D300 and I'm torn between the two only because I can find a used D300 for only about $400 more than a used D90. I would have picked the D90 without a second thought if the price gap was greater. $400 isn't a small amount, but amortized over the life of the equipment it doesn't seem so bad.

I would appreciate any opinions.

Thanks! Heather

Off the top of my head the big advantages to the D300 are build quality, autofocus system, and the ability to meter with manual focus lenses

If you don't need these things then the D90 will be fine

Qarik

From what you described the d90 will be more then enough for you needs. Also for me new D90 is more of sure thing thne a used D300. You may very well get a good honest d3000 that is good shap but then again you may not. One thing to consider..do you shoot in manual or do you use any of the "scene" modes? Note that the D300 does not have any of the scene modes.

ziggy53

I am curious why you have to turn off the flash? Do you also use an external flash?

The Nikon D300 has a better AF section and, depending upon the lens used, should be a bit better at tracking animated animals. I would also suggest a lens with a faster AF-S motor and the particular recommendations would depend upon your shooting proximity to the animals. I do think that the D300 in-body motor is fairly quick as well so maybe a faster aperture prime lens might do the trick.

If you have some sample images we could look at, with EXIF included so we can see what focal length was used, it would be easier to make a recommendation.

heatherk9

Thanks! I will post a few pix later today. I'm almost always within 8 feet of my subject but I keep the 18-200mm on the camera so I can zoom in really tight on little faces when I want to. I have an SB600 that I never use. I try not to use any flash because so many animals 1) blink when they see the flash--especially the blue-eyed, photo-sensitive cats, or 2) get freaked out by it. Actually, some of them are even scared of the camera.

I'll look forward to your lens suggestions.

ziggy53 wrote:

I am curious why you have to turn off the flash? Do you also use an external flash?

The Nikon D300 has a better AF section and, depending upon the lens used, should be a bit better at tracking animated animals. I would also suggest a lens with a faster AF-S motor and the particular recommendations would depend upon your shooting proximity to the animals. I do think that the D300 in-body motor is fairly quick as well so maybe a faster aperture prime lens might do the trick.

If you have some sample images we could look at, with EXIF included so we can see what focal length was used, it would be easier to make a recommendation.

ziggy53

heatherk9 wrote:

Thanks! I will post a few pix later today. I'm almost always within 8 feet of my subject but I keep the 18-200mm on the camera so I can zoom in really tight on little faces when I want to. I have an SB600 that I never use. I try not to use any flash because so many animals 1) blink when they see the flash--especially the blue-eyed, photo-sensitive cats, or 2) get freaked out by it. Actually, some of them are even scared of the camera.

I'll look forward to your lens suggestions.

The Nikon D70 is known to cause "blinkers" in both people and animals due to a relatively long delay between pre-flash and flash. I believe that the D300 is much better in that regard. If you use an external flash and bounce configuration I doubt that the animals would be terribly concerned after the first couple of flashes.

heatherk9

I didn't realize that. I'll put the SB600 on my D70 and try bouncing it to see what happens. Thanks for the info.

I missed a great deal on a D300 last week and now I'm kicking myself.

Nice shots!

ziggy53 wrote:

The Nikon D70 is known to cause "blinkers" in both people and animals due to a relatively long delay between pre-flash and flash. I believe that the D300 is much better in that regard. If you use an external flash and bounce configuration I doubt that the animals would be terribly concerned after the first couple of flashes.

DaC

I recently upgraded from a D70 to a D300. I nearly got the D90. A few more less minor things pushed me to the D300. For me, the D300 felt more like the D70 (weight and size) and had better weather sealing (build as already mentioned). Both cameras autofocus faster and better than the D70 so for me either of the two cameras were a big upgrade on that issue. There are other differences but those were the two that pushed me over. Like I said the choice was very close.

Given what you mentioned I think the D90 may be a better choice for your type of shooting. You may want to look at how both cameras autofocus and meter. The D300 is the more flexible of the two but has a higher learning curve.

If you can rent both before you buy. I could not rent a D90 at the time, but fell in love with the D300 after using it over a weekend.

Either camera is a good choice. I still have the D70 and keep is as a backup camera.

Thanks for helping to find homes for the animals in shelters.
John

heatherk9

DaC wrote:

I recently upgraded from a D70 to a D300. I nearly got the D90. A few more less minor things pushed me to the D300. For me, the D300 felt more like the D70 (weight and size) and had better weather sealing (build as already mentioned). Both cameras autofocus faster and better than the D70 so for me either of the two cameras were a big upgrade on that issue. There are other differences but those were the two that pushed me over. Like I said the choice was very close.

Given what you mentioned I think the D90 may be a better choice for your type of shooting. You may want to look at how both cameras autofocus and meter. The D300 is the more flexible of the two but has a higher learning curve.

If you can rent both before you buy. I could not rent a D90 at the time, but fell in love with the D300 after using it over a weekend.

Either camera is a good choice. I still have the D70 and keep is as a backup camera.

Thanks for helping to find homes for the animals in shelters.
John

Thanks John. That's helpful information--especially about the learning curve. I want better shots now. Not a couple months from now when I've figured out the camera. I'm surprised that the D300 felt more like the D90. I'm less worried about ergonomics though.

heatherk9

heatherk9 wrote:

Thanks! I will post a few pix later today. I'm almost always within 8 feet of my subject but I keep the 18-200mm on the camera so I can zoom in really tight on little faces when I want to. I have an SB600 that I never use. I try not to use any flash because so many animals 1) blink when they see the flash--especially the blue-eyed, photo-sensitive cats, or 2) get freaked out by it. Actually, some of them are even scared of the camera.

I'll look forward to your lens suggestions.

Here is a link to a few sample photos I posted in a SmugMug gallery for feedback on more appropriate lenses--the EXIF data is there. (I just noticed the darn clock on my camera is wrong. Crud.) I'm leaning toward the D90 now because I would be able to afford another lens if I bought that body.

Thank you all!

swintonphoto

I would recommend getting the D90 and spending the extra $ on a great lens like the Tamron 17-50 2.8. For what you are doing I imagine that would make more of a difference than the D-300 with your current lens.

Art Scott

There are sweet deals on used D300's on ebay......I just grabbed one........so for about the same money or less as a new D90 you can pick up a D300..............I am really impressed with mine......ou can also get a Square Trade for most equipment purchased off ebay......so used equipment for less and a 1-5 yr warranty to boot.........................That warranty is something a lot of people do not know about or just do not consider for their used purchases off ebay.................

MLangton

heatherk9 wrote:

Here is a link to a few sample photos I posted in a SmugMug gallery for feedback on more appropriate lenses--the EXIF data is there. (I just noticed the darn clock on my camera is wrong. Crud.) I'm leaning toward the D90 now because I would be able to afford another lens if I bought that body.

Thank you all!

Agreed. Don't do what I did... I ended up getting the "kit" lens for the D-90 (Nikon 18-105mm) with my D-300. The lens came "recommended". Mistake. It is an OK lens. But it's just a good vacation/snapshot lens. It has a plastic bayonet mount, and has quite a bit of distortion. I would NOT recommend it for anything other than casual snapshot stuff. Thats just me...

For the same price, you can get the Nikon 18-70mm (good glass), which has much better quality and less distortion, or from what I have read, get the Nikon 16-85mm, which has great quality and sharpness. I just picked up the 16-85mm and love it so far. I have only had it for a few days though and little data for comparison.

heatherk9

I should have told you what lenses I have already:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR[/FONT]--which I always use

Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX--which I stopped using after I got the 18-200mm

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G[/FONT]--which I stopped using after I got the 18-200mm

MLangton

Wow... I looked really hard at that 18-200mm. Nothing but nice reviews.

Sounds like you are ready for a nice piece of pro glass, or a good prime. Looks like you are already pretty hooked up. I was really torn between the D-90 and D-300. Based on what use you are saying, I think the D-90 would do the job.

Either way, you can't go wrong.