D90 or D300S « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

D90 or D300S

(47 posts) (10 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

In a couple of months I'm upgrading my Nikon entry level gear to the intermediate level.

Obviously the D300S is a superior camera but because I shoot almost all of my shots outdoors during the daylight, do I really need the D300S?

One extra note, there are times when I'm photographing action shots (marathons and etc.) in the shade and have to use a high ISO (800). I want to make sure my new camera can take a quality shot in this situation, unlike my D60 has been able to do. The lens I'll be using is the NIKKOR 70-300 VR.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

The two models in question are differentiated by body construction, controls, and other features, not by IQ. For sake of argument they have identical IQ.

Posted 3 years ago #
Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

soap said:
The two models in question are differentiated by body construction, controls, and other features, not by IQ. For sake of argument they have identical IQ.

So are you saying that basically they'll take the same shot?

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Bland the D90 and D300S share the "same" sensor so image quality will not improve. In fact if you believe the DXO sensor rankings then the D300S will actually give you less IQ than the D90. If you want a camera that will improve on what the D90 is capable of producing then you need to move up to a D700.

I think you should just get faster glass and not a new camera body.

Posted 3 years ago #
Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

NikoDoby said:
Bland the D90 and D300S share the "same" sensor so image quality will not improve. In fact if you believe the DXO sensor rankings then the D300S will actually give you less IQ than the D90. If you want a camera that will improve on what the D90 is capable of producing then you need to move up to a D700.

I think you should just get faster glass and not a new camera body.

Forgive me for being ignorant on this because I'm a novice on alot of what you all talk about, as it shows repeatedly. lol

I understand IQ is the same and probably would be for the D5000 as well. But when I see pictures taken with these (Nikon Website), there is a huge difference in clarity amongst all three of them. I'm sure the lens they're using is a factor in the quality of the pictures but few of those pictures are taken with the high dollar lenes. Maybe this is where my confusion comes from?

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Rather than look at Nikon website, look at flickr. A lot more and a lot more representative of what you might expect.

I love my D90, btw. You might want to look at the full feature set to determine which body you want. Such features as Depth of Field Preview are available on the D300s and D90, but no the D5000. Faster AF on D300s. Ability to use old AIS lenses with metering - D300s. Since I shoot a lot of macro, DOF Preview is very important, but faster autofocus is no issue (almost always manually focus with macro). Think about your needs first.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

ted2001 said:
Rather than look at Nikon website, look at flickr. A lot more and a lot more representative of what you might expect.

While getting away from Nikon's website (which has little reason to be objective) going to flickr is going to replace one sort of bias with another. The fact is that the camera used has very little to do with image quality once you get outside of corner cases. One should expect the average D300 photo to look nicer than the average D5000 photo simply because of who tends to own a D300 and who tends to own a D5000.

The objective fact is that they have the same* sensor and the same* IQ. Looking at end-results reflects every other factor involved except the camera itself.

ted2001's advice is spot-on, though. Determine what body functions you need and buy based on that.

*There are differences, but they are not worthy of this discussion.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Bland said:
Forgive me for being ignorant on this because I'm a novice on alot of what you all talk about, as it shows repeatedly. lol

I understand IQ is the same and probably would be for the D5000 as well. But when I see pictures taken with these (Nikon Website), there is a huge difference in clarity amongst all three of them. I'm sure the lens they're using is a factor in the quality of the pictures but few of those pictures are taken with the high dollar lenes. Maybe this is where my confusion comes from?

No need to apologize Bland. We are all here to share and to learn.

Which pictures are you specifically referring to? Can you give us a link? Are you downloading and comparing high resolution pictures from NikonUSA or some other Nikon website? As ted mentioned you can't judge IQ based on a few "professional" photos and expect to get the same results straight out of a new camera. Especially if you are just looking at small web sized images. I still say your money is better spent on better/faster glass.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

NikoDoby said:
I still say your money is better spent on better/faster glass.

Yes, you may want to consider that as well. What lenses do you currently own?

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Bland said:
Forgive me for being ignorant on this because I'm a novice on alot of what you all talk about, as it shows repeatedly. lol

I understand IQ is the same and probably would be for the D5000 as well. But when I see pictures taken with these (Nikon Website), there is a huge difference in clarity amongst all three of them. I'm sure the lens they're using is a factor in the quality of the pictures but few of those pictures are taken with the high dollar lenes. Maybe this is where my confusion comes from?

You will definitely notice a difference between a gen 1 entry level Nikon and the gen 2 mid-range and semi pro models.

Having cleared that up, pretty much as soap said, you will not see a difference in IQ between your two choices. The controls are placed differently and the build quality is also different. One of the biggest differences is the AF system. The multi-cam 3500 (D300s) is far superior to the aging multi-cam 1000 (D90). The D300s's AF is faster and more accurate. Trust me, I have both. Either way you will definitely see a difference over the D60's AF system for sure.

Basically both the D90 and D300s are great choices. It comes down to how much you want to spend and if you want to buy more lenses as well. Although, if you want to stay in the FL you're in it may cost you a lot more. The lens you have is a good lens all the same.

Posted 3 years ago #
Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

Can't thank you all enough for explaining all of this to me. I'm now understanding the difference and find your replies more beneficial then any revue and etc that I've read all winter.

I had no idea there was a depth of field function and I want. Just the thought of what I could do with crowd shots using that has me itching to get it.

One of the other thing was AF speed, I really need it in what I shoot and this information makes it clear in what direction to look.

Those of you that asked what lenes I use, mine are all Tamron (18-270 and 70-300) but I'm getting all new NIKKOR lenes, those being the 18-200 VR and the 70-300 VR. The high end lenes I'll be getting won't be until next year because I want to learn more about what I really need before shelling out the big money.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Well, since you also want to buy lenses, the D90 may be better unless money is not an issue for you. You will notice a difference in AF performance with either selection you make out of the two choices you've made. How much better you want is all that you have to decide now as well as how much you spend.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

bland - I shot animals (fell free to check my flickr page) with my d90 and don't see any reason to upgrade to d300s - as for the current nikon dslr's lineup it's the most superior camera (considering the price/quality ratio). Unless You can afford better lenses, and You are going to shoot in a very harsh conditions there is no need for You to get d300s. You also mentioned, You are going to shoot at iso 800, that's also not a problem for d90, as it's fully usable up to 1600. As for gen I and gen II bodies... well... don't want to start another fight with gentoo, but if You shoot at low iso's there's not significant difference between those cameras - not significant enough for the difference in price between d300s and d200 - but we had this topic already and I'll be glad gentto if You will not rise the fight again.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

hahaha passive-aggressiveness noted

Also I believe he's upgrating from a D60, not a D90.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Bland said:
In a couple of months I'm upgrading my Nikon entry level gear to the intermediate level.

You know it really is pointless to argue which has better auto focus since "in a couple of months" there will probably be a newer, D90 replacement with better AF anyway. (hopefully)

Posted 3 years ago #
valonqe

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 171
offline

NikoDoby said:
You know it really is pointless to argue which has better auto focus since "in a couple of months" there will probably be a newer, D90 replacement with better AF anyway. (hopefully)

Hi Niko !

Since you mention that in a couple of month that probably is going to be a newer D90, do you know or heard any thing regarding other models? the only info I tent to get is here one NR and reading on the web. No photo mags over here in my country like I use to get when I was in England.

Regards

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Hey valonqe. The D90 is up for replacement this year. When is the replacement going to show up is the real question. Despite all the love and praise the D90 gets, here especially, it is starting to show it's age. New models from other manufacturers offer more features for cheaper. The D90 was marked down considerable this holiday season too.

A new round of Nikon announcements can come within the next few days or,more likely, the next few weeks leading up into PMA (Photo Marketing Association) international conference which starts Feb 21st. Canon has an announcement for Feb 9th where they will unveil new Rebels and perhaps either a 60D (direct competition to the D90) or a 1DsMk4.

If the D90 replacement isn't announced at PMA then look for more Nikon announcements either in Mar or Apr.

Don't worry though, admin will have some juicy rumors in between for us :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I would avoid the D5000 just because some settings you'll want are buried in menus like on the D60. The feature I miss most when I pick up my brother's D40 or my brother-in-law's D60 is two control wheels (I think there's a better name than that for them). My wife is a runner and I have used both the D300 and the D90 to take pictures of her. If I was doing it for money, the better AF of the D300 -might- be worth it to me (if I -needed- to nail the shot), but even then I think you're better off with the D90 and a faster lens—faster meaning both AF and aperture. I've used the D90's 3D tracking autofocus mode enough now to say that it's adequate for all the situations that I used the D300. Coincidentally, I was just outside today with my D90 taking pictures of my son running straight toward me (7mph? at about 20 feet away) and the 3D tracking got it right every time. This was bright daylight, though, and shade might have been a different story.
So, if I was you I would much rather have the first of these combinations:
1st choice:
D90 + 18-105 (kit lens) $1030*
70-200 VRI $1800
$2830 total

2nd choice:
D300s + 18-200 $2270*
70-300 $565*
$2835 total
*amazon price

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

JA advice is very reasonable, You can also check ebay to get a used d90.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

JonnyApple for presidnet! :)

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

jonnyapple said:
So, if I was you I would much rather have the first of these combinations:
1st choice:
D90 + 18-105 (kit lens) $1030*
70-200 VRI $1800
$2830 total

adamz said:
JA advice is very reasonable

Gentoo said:
JonnyApple for presidnet! :)

Yes, yes, and yes :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

I was waiting to see who would recommend he buy a used D90 adamz,lol. You guys are so predictable :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

So are you :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Is that my que to recommend the 16-85 as a companion to the 70-300 VR? I think it's worth the money over the 18-105.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Don't tell jonny that ted :^)

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

D90 or D300S

Reply »