D300 v D90

Joshua James

Joshua James

Suspended / Banned
Messages
745
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I'm an ametuer photographer at the moment but I am building my skills up and would hope to start doing some portrait and potentially some wedding work over the next 18 months or so.

Anyhow I've got to the point where my D40x is A) getting old and tired and B) limiting what I can do creatively (AF limitations etc) so I've decided to upgrade.

Until recently I was pretty sure I was going to go for the D300 and keep hold fo the D40x as a back up / travel camera. However now the time has come I've been looking more closely at the D90 and I'm struggling to see the justification for the huge price diffence between the two. I know that the D300 has a couple of frames per second advantage on the D90 but in most other ways they seem very similar?

Is there anyone out there with experience of using both of these cameras? particularly interested in their performance in low light and under portrait conditions (Studio and location).

TBH the price difference isn't a Major concern at the moment (It's on finance so the difference is not huge on a monthly basis) so I'm just after honest feedback on the performance of these two cameras.

Thanks in advance!
 
The D300 has a magnesium body rather than plastic, better ergonomics, faster frame rate,51 AF points against 11.....
 
D300 Also has an AF motor,So you're not limited to AF-S and AF-D lenses
 
I would go into a shop and have a look and feel (see if they will let u take test shots (most will so take SD & CF cards another difference between the cameras)) and take it from there ... if cost isnt an issue then for another 400 or so quid pick up the D700 and then you will really be troubled as to which is the one you want)
 
Joshua James said:
Is there anyone out there with experience of using both of these cameras? particularly interested in their performance in low light and under portrait conditions (Studio and location).
Click to expand...

I used to own a D90...

Low-light performance is supposedly 'slightly' better on the D90, they'd also both be excellent performers under studio/portrait conditions. The AF system is the biggest advantage IMHO, the 51-point system is fantastic whereas the D90's 11-point system can be a little limiting.
 
Yeah I think I'll pop into Jessops tomorrow morning and have a touchy feel session. I've got about 40 Gb of SD memory which I'd have to replace by moving to the D300.

Do 51 AF points make such a huge difference? I've never had more than 5 to contend with before (On my sorely missed D50). I can see the advantages of having at least 9, but more than that seems like showing off to me :)

Build quality is a bit of a concern as I have a two year old who is OBSESSED with trying to get hold of my camera - but that said the D40x has done a fine job on this score - TBH it is practically mint to look at.

Hmmmm.....
 
Diverkeith said:
I would go into a shop and have a look and feel (see if they will let u take test shots (most will so take SD & CF cards another difference between the cameras)) and take it from there ... if cost isnt an issue then for another 400 or so quid pick up the D700 and then you will really be troubled as to which is the one you want)
Click to expand...


Don't tempt me!!!! :razz::D:D
 
Joshua James said:
Yeah I think I'll pop into Jessops tomorrow morning and have a touchy feel session. I've got about 40 Gb of SD memory which I'd have to replace by moving to the D300.

Do 51 AF points make such a huge difference? I've never had more than 5 to contend with before (On my sorely missed D50). I can see the advantages of having at least 9, but more than that seems like showing off to me :)

Build quality is a bit of a concern as I have a two year old who is OBSESSED with trying to get hold of my camera - but that said the D40x has done a fine job on this score - TBH it is practically mint to look at.

Hmmmm.....
Click to expand...

Once you've used 51 af points any less is frustrating - the D40 I bought drove me to distraction :lol:

Go and try the two together - the D90 feels like a toy compared to the D300...
 
Joshua James said:
Do 51 AF points make such a huge difference? I've never had more than 5 to contend with before (On my sorely missed D50). I can see the advantages of having at least 9, but more than that seems like showing off to me :).
Click to expand...

IMHO, yes. :)

It's not just the number of points, there is a sophisticated AF system underpinning it. ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Once you've used 51 af points any less is frustrating - the D40 I bought drove me to distraction :lol:

Go and try the two together - the D90 feels like a toy compared to the D300...
Click to expand...

sdb123 said:
IMHO, yes. :)

It's not just the number of points, there is a sophisticated AF system underpinning it. ;)
Click to expand...

I think its settled then - I'm going to have to have a look at both tomorrow and weigh up the AF systems. I hear what your both saying! Build quality is probably more of a selling point than I'm letting on to be honest - I suspect as Flash alludes to, once I've seen the difference it will make my mind up for me..... :clap:
 
Don't know about the D90 (except for the Video bit ...gimmik?) ...but I love my D300 so ..... no contest for me ..... always the best bet is to try before you buy ....

Paul
 
I swapped out my D300 because it is pretty sure now there is a D300s or D400 coming down the road sometime soon and I didn't want to lose too much depreciation. I got the D90 as replacement and it is a fine little camera, but it is no D300 ... or D700, which is my main camera.

The D300 and D700 make a great combo, but the d90 is a step back in handling terms. A lot about photography for me is feel and usability. There is nothing wrong with the D90 but it is just not as solid and sure in use. I trust it less and part of that is the inferior AF system. This is noticeable on my travel zoom the 16-85mm VR, which has gone from truly superb to just pretty decent and it's just down to body performance. ISO is very good on the D90, but the D300 is good too ... maybe not quite so good. Dunno, close call.

If you are less worried about cost I'd likely advise get a D300 ... but expect some depreciation when the next model comes along around October time. If you want to keep it long term then that's not really a worry.

I've been tempted to pick up a SH D300 again and sell the D90. I really don't want to be a downer on the D90 because it really is excellent within it's class ... but as I say, it ain't a D300 to me.
 
I have the D90, but only because I didn't have the extra cash for the 300. The D90 produces the same pictures as a 300 and I say it comes down to the user. But if you can afford it go for the D300, if you don't have many DX lenses or you have a few primes then make the switch to a D700. FX FTW.
 
I've just had a comedy trip to Jessops!

I went in to my local (Very Small) branch to compare the D90 and D300. First of all I had a bit of a wait whilst tehy checked if they had a D90 in stock and alas they did not! Not due to get one in for about 2 weeks....

Anyway, I asked to look at the D300 whilst I was there. The very helpful young lady went off to find the keys for cabinet. TEN MINUTES LATER she reappears with a bunch of keys. After playing around with the display lock for a while she announces the key is missing. She goes to look for it and reappears ANOTHER TEN MINUTES LATER witht he same bunch of keys to try again.

After a bit of wiggling and jiggling she gets the key into the lock for the Nikon cabinet and finally I'm about to hold the D300.....

Except the heavy handed lass snapped the key off in the lock!

I left after nearly 30 minutes without actually holding either camera.....

Is this an omen? perhaps someone is telling me to get a D700???
 
Just to chip in, I upgraded from the D40 to the D90, didn't go for the D300 for financial reasons. Image quality wise I can't see much of a difference between the two (I've got a few mates with the D300), the main difference is the video (that some find gimmicky, others find great - so far I haven't used it but I'm planning to soon) and the handling I'd say. I've bought a camera grip for the D90 and that should improve the handling quite a bit, but it is still a fair bit smaller than the D300.
If I'm not mistaken the D300 also shoots at 1/8000 whereas the D90 "only" at 1/4000, so if you're shooting in insanely bright environments or want to take _very_ fast pictures, maybe that's also something to keep in mind (e.g. I had to step down a few stops with my 50mm/1.8 on a sunny day cause 1/4000 just wasnt fast enough...).

So, yeah, if you have the money and don't care about video at all (mind you it _does_ look great if done properly!) then the D300 is probably the way to go.

As for the D700, it's awesome, but remember you have to get full frame compatible lenses too!

Maybe get a D90/D300 now and spend more on the lens (full frame compatible) and later on upgrade to the D700?

Low light btw. is pretty much the same between both D90 and D300. The D700 is in a different class of course.
 
I have a D300 and D90.

If I had to choose one - D300 every time. Faster FPS, superior AF and switches on the body where you have to use dials on the D90. A minor inconvenience, but irritating nonetheless. Especially if you're forgetful like I am and spend half an hour figuring out where the button has gone to change metering or focussing mode :)
 
Josh, if you need to shift some SD memory, drop me a PM!
 
You've been told frankly to either get the D700, or go to another store, or shift to Canon ... whatever you do, you've been clearly warned to not come back to that Jessops.
 
You said you were interested in portraits. The D90 hasn't got a flash sync terminal, which would be rather important if you intend to do any studio work, in which case the chances are at some point you'll be using radio triggers.
 
Joshua, I'm not understanding what you meant by point A & B. Do you mean you're fed up of your D40x (A) and how does the AF in the D40x limiting you?

If you do want to upgrade, I think the D90 will suit your needs well coming from D40x. D300 is a very different camera altogether.
 
Hi dragonfly,

To clarify A) literally its old and tired - it must be on about 100,000,000 shutter activations and occassionally sticks. B) the lack of an AF motor and more importantly the AF system itself (Only three focal area's) is a PITA sometimes.

I appreciate some of the differences between the two camera's but I guess whats most improtant to me is there abilities as a portrait / wedding tool as that is my final goal.
 
Joshua James said:
I appreciate some of the differences between the two camera's but I guess whats most improtant to me is there abilities as a portrait / wedding tool as that is my final goal.
Click to expand...

That'll be a D700 or a D3 then. :lol:

If you can't stretch to either of them go for the D300 or hold off to see if a replacement is launched in the near future.
 
I think you're very lucky to get 100K clicks out of your D40x, as it's only rated at half that. I still think the D90 will serve your needs well. Although if you're going to drive it as hard as you did with the 40x, I'd consider going for the D300 - it's more rugged than the 90 in many ways. You pay for this of course!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top