The D300s is one of the most business like Nikon DSLRs i have ever seen. I don't own one but the D300 I almost prefer to all of my cameras. The D300s added some very valuable features. I guess my no rush attitude is I still wonder about a D300s upgrade with better video as the D7000 sure shows that is possible.

Hello Regulator!
Just to add some of my points here.

I've own the D90 almost a year ago and to be frank, its a remarkable (Entry Level) DSLR with lotsa "Value Added" services as to compared with D60 or D3000. My terms "Value Added" derives from the fast shutter response and higher ISO performance. Not truly much on the physical camera body by itself.
I did somehow hands on the D300s recently. Put aside the button and body features but generally, the results also did concluded with a faster shutter + higher ISO compared to D90.

I always believe the fact that when you choose a Camera, its budget against technology and feature. In Camera, there's always much more higher grade features compared by models but do consider the point if you necessarily need them to achieve your picture's objective.

By the way, I've seen your sample posted Pixs! They're awesome ! =)

There is one other thing you did not list. The D300s has the 1005 pixel exposure meter. The D90 has the same exposure meter as the D40 (428 pixels, I think). My experience with the D40 has been that the Matrix metering is not very good when there is much contrast in the scene. I use center weighted most of the time unless I want to play with the spot meter.

If you shoot sports or other serious action (or if you need the weather sealing) it's a no-brainer for the D300 or D300s. Other than those things, D90 is a great camera (or wait its successor with gen 2 video).

If that's what you meant

kyoshinikon said:
...but it equaled it making up for a few things with its price and benefits listed above.

If that's what you meant (including price in the picture) I agree with you, although there are photographers that would prefer the D300 to the D90 for what they do even considering the price difference.

Many categories referred to the ISO performance (big one), In camera Editing, Info button, Flash control, menu system, Image Review, Lcd,Video feature. I Don't consider the "crapdial" an upgrade... The D90 did not outclass the D300 but it equaled it making up for a few things with its price and benefits listed above. Then again the I believe the D300s was made to put the D90 back into "line"...

PB PM said:
I'm not sure what he meant by that either. The only things the D90 has that the original D300 did not have, are the quick settings changes access via the info button, beginner/amateur scene modes, and video.

I agree that the D90 isn't an upgrade from the D300, but I wanted to add that I like the image review on the D90 better. Very minor, but it's nice to have the sort by date and the face highlighting to quickly check focus on faces in group portraits. I'm talking about how you can zoom in then use the front command dial to toggle through the faces. But it sometimes doesn't catch all of them and it's kind of annoying that it's limited to five faces.

Besides that and what PB PM mentioned, I can't think of anything else where the D300 doesn't outclass the D90.

don't see any problems with using big lenses on d90, have 70-200vr with TC17 attached to it all the time, sometimes also with TC20, was using it with bigma; agree with PB PM that it's more confy with grip attached

I'm not sure what he meant by that either. The only things the D90 has that the original D300 did not have, are the quick settings changes access via the info button, beginner/amateur scene modes, and video.

kyoshinikon said:
Nikon probably only made the D300s because the D90 could do almost everything the D300 can do only better in many categories.

What exactly are the "many categories" that you're speaking of here?

The D90 is fine with big lenses, although it is a lot more comfortable to use heavy lens in the D90 if you have the MB-D80 attached.

On a sidenote My D90 handles fine with both the 80-200mm f/2.8 and the (borrowed) 70-200mm f/2.8 vr1 (the VrII I assume isn't significantly different in size weight or performance to the other 2). Nikon probably only made the D300s because the D90 could do almost everything the D300 can do only better in many categories. If you need the extra slots and more AF points (which help make the AF faster) though the D300s is superior.

Oh Please-do not consider the d90-I just bought mine less than 60 days ago before I stumbled upon the d300s so am now selling the d90 at a big fat loss for a few reasons-It is a wonderful camera but if you ever want to get a big lens like the 70-200 VR ll which I just purchased then the d90 IMO is not sturdy enough-in addition to the excellent dual card slot & horizon line features ect. -the d300s is an amazing quality camera & hands down the winner! I definitely am going to buy a Full Frame camera but am just waiting until the newer version of the d700 is released and then will keep the d300s for my backup.
Stick w/the D300s!!!!!!!!

By the way, the D90 is available at B and H for $739, body only, new.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Q=&IC=NID90&A=RetrieveSku

Add to cart to see price.

Regulator75 said:
I can honestly say that I would benefit greatly from a Phase One P 65+, Hasselblad H4D-60 or even just a plain old Leica S2-P.

We all have to keep costs in check, not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

haha, couldn't we all? Actually, considering that I use my D300 on hikes I think it and the gear I have is heavy enough already, so I think I'll stick with 35mm gear, rather than medium format stuff.

I'm not rich either, I'm a recent college grad, barely making more than minimum wage, slave laborer (j/k), so I understand being careful with your money. That being said I know how to save for what I need to get the job done. Sounds like you do too. That said, I've built up the lenses I need, for the most part, which makes it a lot easier to buy a new body because I'm not trying to save up for new lenses. I'm also working on a photography related book, so in the end the D300 should pay for itself.

Regulator75 said:
I can honestly say that I would benefit greatly from a Phase One P 65+, Hasselblad H4D-60 or even just a plain old Leica S2-P.

We all have to keep costs in check, not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

+2 :)

PB PM said:
As it has been said before, if you don't know why you'd need a higher end camera, you most likely do not need one. If you need a semi-pro or pro grade camera you know it and you get it.

I can honestly say that I would benefit greatly from a Phase One P 65+, Hasselblad H4D-60 or even just a plain old Leica S2-P.

We all have to keep costs in check, not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Regulator75 said:
It's our passion for photography that sets us apart from some guy with a boatload of "better gear" who doesn't know how to use it.

Have a great week everyone.

+1 (not accusing anyone here of not knowing their gear, though) ;-)

Another sidenote is that I'd rather invest more money into the successor of the D300s when it eventually comes out. So in the mean time, I'll be picking up the D90 and feel confident about my final decision.

For me personally, it's outweighing the pros / cons and subtle differences for the warranted price increase. At this point the D300s doesn't have enough major differences that I can justify dropping an extra $700.00.

I have been published a few times had some corporate gigs while shooting with my D80. As others have said, it's not the tools that makes you a great photographer... It's your use of said tools.

I appreciate everyone's input and just for the record I do consider myself on a higher level than the "average photographer". The average photographer doesn't take his/her gear everywhere they go, constantly looking for new lines and ideas for a shoot. Even while driving I scout vantage points and framing for new photoshoots.

It's our passion for photography that sets us apart from some guy with a boatload of "better gear" who doesn't know how to use it.

Have a great week everyone.

As it has been said before, if you don't know why you'd need a higher end camera, you most likely do not need one. If you need a semi-pro or pro grade camera you know it and you get it.

I guess there's sth wrong with me, as there's no single thing I wouldn't do with my d90 that I could do with d300/d300s. Moreover, if You know Your equipment and have good shooting skills than there's no reasonable reason to spend twice as much money on d300s, ,but maybe I'm wrong. If so, sorry guys, I guess I don't care about the camera more than about pictures.

kyoshinikon said:
I can agree with that. Also the "average photographer" will snapshoot more (or just compose and record a good image) instead of immersing in the setting and trying to portray a vision in the best way possible by painstakingly controling every aspect of the shot .

Yup, you said it better than I. The average person with a camera does not care how it works or why, just that it does. I have helped family members, and many other people choose a camera, none of them cared about control that I do. I think it is easy for people on forums like this to forget that the average person who owns a camera does not consider themselves a photographer. If you define a photographer as a person who purposely goes out to take photos, then you have a very narrow view of what a photographer is. Everyone on the plant that has a camera is a photographer, IMO, they just don't know it.

I'm not implying that the average photographer doesn't care about his/her photograph, they just arent as picky about their tools control set. There is essentially no such thing as average photographer... When I say average I'm referring to the general population of photographers, a group which has all different styles and techniques but do not enjoy or feel the need to use photography as a full blown technical art form that interprets, but instead enjoy it for it's simplicity, emotional attachment, and honesty (recordability). The "average photographer" isn't limited to one tool, it is just that they usually aren't so picky about what tool they use because where the ISO button is won't effect their mood or shooting style...

On the original subject the D90 is a fine camera as is the D300s. Only you can decide if the extra AF points and the less amount of menus and more buttons can justify the price. You are the artist using the tool, not us nikon loonies.

By your definition, the "average photographer" needs nothing more than a 5 MP P&S camera.

I don't define it that way because, again, there is no such thing as an average photographer. But you can keep thinking there is such an animal if you want.

Scott

PB PM said:
The "average photographer" by my definition, may not care about the control that I do.

I can agree with that. Also the "average photographer" will snapshoot more (or just compose and record a good image) instead of immersing in the setting and trying to portray a vision in the best way possible by painstakingly controling every aspect of the shot .