D90 or D300

I've had the D300, which I got upgrading from the D200. It was good at high ISO, compared to the D200.

However, I've read that the D90 trumps the D300 at high ISO. So, if that's what you're after then I'd say go with the D90.

Keep in mind, if this is something you want to do over the "next year", then you may want to wait and see what the replacement of the D300 is like, this should not be too long.
 
Thanks for that, Wail. I was under the impression the 90 had a bit better high ISO capability, but thought there may be other things the 300 had that trumped the 90. :)

I've been leaning towards the 90 as I'd still be able to use the grip from my 80 (from what I understand).

Anyone know if the 300 replacement will be FF or not? I have a selection of Tamron DI lenses I don't want to part with.
 
I am not too sure of a head-to-head comparison between these two. However, I know that the Nikon Dxxx (D100, D200, D300) range are more robust and better sealed vs. the Nikon Dxx (D40, D40x, D70 ... D90).

That's why I would favour the D300 any time.

Even though the D90 has better high ISO capabilities (not sure by how much, but it's supposed to be bit better), and is over £300 cheaper than the D300 .. still, the robustness of the D300 made me take it without a thought.

When the price was right, for me, I then moved from the D300 to the D700 (because I wanted, and needed, better high ISO capabilities).
 
It depends if you feel you would benefit from the extra features like the better weather sealing etc. or whether the slightly improved high iso settings and video mode would be more useful.

I went from the D80/MB-D80 combo (which I was really happy with) to a D300, but when I had another shot of a D80 6 months later, it felt plasticky and lightweight by comparison, even though it's not really. The D300 is just, as Wail says, much more robust.

Like the previous D80/200 models the D90 has some advancements over it's bigger brother, whereas the D300 has the magnesium chassis, the weather sealing and easier function access, which makes it quicker to use, plus 8fps when the MB-D10 grip is added, which, as I was intending to use it for motorsport, was the final clincher for me.
 
I was in the same boat a few months ago and found that the D300 was worth the extra if I didn't "need" a movie function. The build quality of the D300 is a lot better than the D90/D80 and as I shoot motorsport the high fps of the D300 was what did it for me.

However thats not to say that the D90 is badly built but as above, it does feel plasticky. I have tried the D80 with the grip and although it feels better it is not as nice as the D300 with the grip. Also having used the D300 for some time the shutter release feels more natural to be without the "click" you get with the D80/D90.

Essentially I honestly don't think the D90 is that much of an upgrade from the D80 whereas the D300 is. You could however wait until later this year where Nikon are said to be releasing some new bodies!
 
I've never held a D300, but looking at the specs it's nearly a third heavier than the D90, but whether that's noticeable or not ...
 
Yeah its not light, but thats what you get with a mag-alloy chassis. I actually prefer the weighty feel of the D300 myself, feels like its built like a tank!
 
Having moved from a bridge camera, the D90 feels heavy enough (and expensive enough) to me!
 
Thanks for comments guys.
A titanium body doesn't really matter to me to be honest. My D80 has held up fine. It even survived a fall while atop my fully extended tripod. lol. I do 100% portrait work, so FPS doesn't really matter either.... Although 8FPS does sound nice. :D Looks like the D90 would better suit me overall though.

Is the general consensus that the D400 (or whatever it will be called) will be FX?
 
D300 has a heck lot more features than D90 obviously the price reflects that. I have D90 its great, but will look to have D300 when the 2nd hand price come down significantly :)

D90 can take video ;)
 
ricky1980 said:
D300 has a heck lot more features than D90 obviously the price reflects that. I have D90 its great, but will look to have D300 when the 2nd hand price come down significantly :)

D90 can take video ;)
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's got a lot more features than the D90 to be fair. :)
 
If you do 100% portrait work, how about the Fuji S5 pro? You might still find one new - and they're dirt cheap now compared to their original RRP. It is basically a D200 with a different sensor/processor so accepts the same lenses and flashes (uses a dedicated Fuji battery though).

TBH, I would be surprised if the D300 replacement was FF since Nikon have expressed their commitment to the Dx sensor in the past.
 
I looked at an S5 pro, and a D200/300 before settling on a D90. Very similar performance to a D300, and argueably better high ISO performance. The sheer size of the D300 was a bit of a turn off for me, as a lot of my photos will be family portraits/videos - the D90 was just a better fit.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The S5 is a Nikon body, the only difference is the sensor.....and the price ;)
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Aware it's a D200 with Fuji innards. :) I think what throws me off is the SR CCD sensor on the Fuji of which I really haven't done enough research to understand. From what I've read, it's effectively a 6mp image processed into a 12mp output image.

Not really sure how I feel about that much processing being done on my images before I even get a chance to do anything to them. lol. But of course, I really don't understand the "processing" which takes place anyway. Will definitely do some reading up on it though.
 
Why not keep the D80 as a back-up body and get a D700 on "interest free credit" ;)

Go on, you know you want to!
 
I have the D90 and am very happy with it, the reason I went for the D90 over the D300 was me a personal choice, as i have very small hands and also arthritis in my wrists, i felt that i would struggle with the heavier weight from the D300 :)

But saying all that if i had the choice and no problems with my wrists i would have gone for the D300 as it i think be a better long term camera - but thats just my opinion :thinking:
 
purely on handling i much prefer the 300, it feels solid not bulky and robust not beefy. plus it feels like you could kick it down stairs and it would laugh in your face.



i wouldnt do that though, thatd be plain wrong
 
although now ive started my own thread im also starting to wonder bout the 90!
 
mr_v_s said:
Why not keep the D80 as a back-up body and get a D700 on "interest free credit" ;)

Go on, you know you want to!
Click to expand...

Lol. I'll be keeping the 80 as a backup... Although, I have thought about selling off all my kit, getting a D700 and an 85mm 1.4 and just shoot prime only. Not sure how I'd like that though.
 
f-stop i think my friend tommy is doing something similar, d700 with 14 and a 50 with a 70-200 for commercial work. i think thats all he's been using at any rate
 
ive just won a 28mm fixed on evil bay! im very excited after missing out on a 24 and another 28. f stop im intrigued by your d700 with prime idea, im new to photography but from the limited experience i have i feel, at the moment at least, id rather a decent couple fixed lenses and a great body than good lenses and a decent body but i seem to be in the minority? am i missing something, is it just because i havent used a really good lens? maybe i shoudl start a thread
 
Pretty much as a rule of thumb, lower quality body with high quality lenses will churn out a better product than an higher quality body and lower quality lens. Always go for the glass. :)

I have a 28mm 2.8 as well and it's a very, very nice lens. Sharp as poo.
 
ok. im now worried because that glass i bought (28 e series) isnt as sharp as poo :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top