New D90 Owner - WOW !

id rather the better low light performance of the d300 or d90 over the d200, plus better battery life (better in 90 than 300 i think?)
 
I still reckon the low light performance of the D300 is masssively overrated.

I've been playing around with one again, and I'm managing to most impressive feat of burning highlights while getting mucky noisey shadows, especially in the blue channel.

Maybe I'm just spoiled by the D700...?
 
puddleduck said:
Maybe I'm just spoiled by the D700...?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing so, over ISO400 my D90 is on an entirely different planet to my D50, so much so that I've used ISO1600 a couple of times without fear of it being an entirely pointless exercise.
 
puddleduck said:
I still reckon the low light performance of the D300 is masssively overrated.

I've been playing around with one again, and I'm managing to most impressive feat of burning highlights while getting mucky noisey shadows, especially in the blue channel.

Maybe I'm just spoiled by the D700...?
Click to expand...

Could well be Andy.

For me the low light performance of the D90 is respectable, like ukaskew I've used ISO1600 a few times with good results (for me). It's certainly better than the D40 I used to own and a D80 I tried out.

The D700, from what I've seen, is in a completley different planet in comparison. :)
 
sdb123 said:
The D700, from what I've seen, is in a completley different planet in comparison. :)
Click to expand...

That could be it, both times I've had a D300 in da house I've had either a S5 Pro or D700 as my primary camera.

Maybe I should be comparing from a D80, D40 etc perspective..?
 
D90 is fantastic. I've had mine for a couple of weeks now and I can't fault it. At high ISO the noise is negligible compared to my old D40x and D70. The back screen is stunning and its so easy to navigate the menu's even I can manage. Unless you need more fps or weatherproofing its the D90 over the D300 as far as I'm concerned.

Andy
 
puddleduck said:
That could be it, both times I've had a D300 in da house I've had either a S5 Pro or D700 as my primary camera.

Maybe I should be comparing from a D80, D40 etc perspective..?
Click to expand...

It's nice to read a perspective coming from the other perspective (i.e. higher-end) - the D300 is (atm) the natural stepping stone before Full Frame so it's interesting for me to read an experienced view and comparison. :)

Certainly coming from other camera's in the Nikon range the D90/D300 performance is definitely improved. No doubt they'll be 'bigger and better' offerings released in the near future.
 
gus607 said:
What about a D90 owners thread ?
Click to expand...

You could always start one yourself, somebody started one for the Sony Alpha, and it's gone on forever :)
 
puddleduck dont shatter my dream before its even taken off!
 
gumbo-67 said:
I got my D90 in december and i love it.. (still reading the manual) but it is a great bit of kit i think but then i know nothing
Click to expand...

How many pages has the manual :)

Saving for a D90....got some money for my Birthday and now a third of the way there I'll be getting it with the 16-85 lens though
 
and its much better in good light.
Click to expand...

lol but i want it to be good in crappy light :,(

You just know that you'll be pining for a FF body after getting a D300.
Click to expand...

undoubtedly but the 700 is gonna be a lot of saving and proper justification-not this flimsy, feel like im outgrowing my d40 and want a nice camera with hunners to master nonsense
 
right I'm having a dilema because of this thread , should I get the d80 or the d90 , is the difference in price worth it ?
 
d90 over d80, im having dilemma over whether to go d300 over d90 now!
 
liss said:
right I'm having a dilema because of this thread , should I get the d80 or the d90 , is the difference in price worth it ?
Click to expand...

I would get the D90, I had and a friend still has the D80 and the 90 wipes the floor with it to be honest.

Is the price difference worth it,,,,YES.
 
Right, i cant afford the d300, so its either a new D200 or a D90? Any thoughts?
 
better low light performance, it can compete on a few things with d300-also meant to have a better battery life i think? the price will probably reflect that though
 
fontmoss said:
lol but i want it to be good in crappy light :,(

undoubtedly but the 700 is gonna be a lot of saving and proper justification-not this flimsy, feel like im outgrowing my d40 and want a nice camera with hunners to master nonsense
Click to expand...

If you want good performance in 'crappy' light then you should be saving for the D700 then. ;)
 
very true but can get a d300 for £800, in the unlikely event i find a 2nd hand d700 it'll be more like 1500...dont worry it will be mine, oh yes it will be mine.*



*just not mine for ages
 
im with you there sir, someone has an unopened refurb for 840 posted :P

i was wavering over whether to go for new d90 for 600 but i think ill hold true and go for the 300, arguably not as good in crappy light but offers more control and functions like metering my old lenses and just feels much better to handle. (let me know if im being crazy)
 
You're not being crazy at all. :) I agonised over both, tbh the D90 was the perfect step up for me from the D40.

I favour people photography and low-light work so the natural move for me next is the D700 (as it stands now).
 
Unless the "someone" is a dealer you won't get a warranty.

Nikon are VERY clear on warranties being transferable. Buying a refurb from a 3rd party does not appear to be a good deal to me...?
 
the warranty hasnt been registered and is with nikon rather than the shop, so should be ok?

yeah ultimately im looking at a d700, arguably id be better served by a d90 now and a bit of cash but i like that the 300 meters my lenses, feels nicer to handle and is (i think?) closer related to the d700 in terms of controls. I want something to grow into and if i got a d90 id be wondering about the d300.

im also into people more than anything else as my flickr demonstrates but the d700 is a looong way off and d300 fills that gap better, for me, than d90.
 
fontmoss said:
the warranty hasnt been registered and is with nikon rather than the shop, so should be ok?.
Click to expand...

http://www.europe-nikon.com/home/en_GB/local/broad/386/1.html

The warranty card is issued only at the time of original purchase; it is non transferable.

Establishing the original purchase date should be made by the original consumer purchase via the sales slips or other evidence.

Registration doesn't matter - you may be able to convince Nikon you are the original owner (and it would help if it wasn't in someone else names) but read the link, as Nikon are the ones who you'll be sending it to if it needs service
 
ok so you reckon the warranty wont be valid even if hasnt been registered. *sigh* this is driving me crazy
 
fontmoss said:
ok so you reckon the warranty wont be valid even if hasnt been registered. *sigh* this is driving me crazy
Click to expand...

I bought a D200 several years back, no actutions, with receipt from AJPurdy (from the original purchaser)

Nikon UK would not do it due to irregular warranty info and charged me £120.

Just be aware - you are saving £60 but a repair bill will be more.

Its your call, and the reason we all buy second hand is because its a calculated risk - saving vs new price.

In your instance, I don't feel £840 vs £899 from MPB is a good deal.
 
without a valid warranty then 840 from 899 is pants
 
fontmoss said:
without a valid warranty then 840 from 899 is pants
Click to expand...

I buy used a lot and I never have problems, I paid £1200 for my D700 used. But I wouldn't have paid £1200 if I could have bought a refurb with warranty for £1260...

As it is, my D700 is going strong and works superbly. But I don't have a warranty and thats something to be aware of.
 
im agreeing, 900 for a years warranty or even a grand from jessops for 2 years warranty makes 840 without warranty pretty pointless. dont think jessops do finance options
 
Another option would be to buy a D300 that is 13 months old. Definately no warranty but should also be cheaper! Plus if its worked for 13 months, it probably would have already gone wrong by now!

There are still cheap ones on Ebay atm, price rises there haven't caught up yet.
 
puddleduck said:
Another option would be to buy a D300 that is 13 months old. Definately no warranty but should also be cheaper! Plus if its worked for 13 months, it probably would have already gone wrong by now!

There are still cheap ones on Ebay atm, price rises there haven't caught up yet.
Click to expand...

Brilliant logic to buy high mileage cars by :lol:

Where are the cheap D300s on Ebay? btw ;) :lol:
 
Or get an interest free credit card - FYI if you have a Nationwide Credit Card you get an extra 1 year free on top of the manufactuer as well.

This insurance paid for my first Tamron 17-50 that I dropped in a lake and drowned, so its not a gimmick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top