Hi, i'm saving for some time now and as i'm pretty new to digital photography i'm not sure which body to buy: D90 or D300? for a take everywhere body and back-up. D700 or D3? for fx applications and pro body. This is a unique chance for me to get serious equipment as i live in Argentina and don't have cheap access to this stuff. The D3 is u$s6300 or so here so it's a big decision for me. In two weeks i'll be able to get either the D90 or the D300... help me decide please!
Which should i buy???(9 posts) (5 voices)
As far as the choice between D90 and D300, it all depends on what kind of photography You are shooting. If You need robust, fast autofocusing camera than go for D300. If You shoot more landscape, and studio work than get D90 and some better lens/lenses, as the picture quality between this two cameras is quite similar. The biggest difference is the body construction.
The same situation is between D700 and D3. If You shoot fast action, and need 100% viefinder coverage go for D3, same if You gonna use D700 with battery grip (D700 is bigger with BG than D3). In other situations I'll go for D700 and a more decent lens (as with FX You need the best lenses to fully enjoj this format.
I know, i actually know all this things already. I've read every thread, post and review i could find on all of this cameras and topics like this. The thing is i would like to have the best (features) in order to be able to shoot anything, from landscape, macro, action, portraits, low light... i guess i'm answering myself here, but i have to know if it's worth all the $... the 100% finder is a big thing though and i can't quite digest the other 90% in comparison... any other thoughts welcome. btw, thanks Adam!
you said that you are new to photography, yes? If you are going to get the D3 or D700 or even D300 you are going to be overwhelmed with all of the features, and you will hate using it. If you are new and want to get something good, get the D90, buy better lenses. I would suggest. Nikon 50mm 1.8D for start. Learn how to compose and use the camera, then if you feel that your skills and experience have grown and the D90 isn't enough for you, then you can go ahead and spend thousands of dollars for a camera.
It would be ridiculous to buy an FX camera and use crappy lenses on it. Buy better lenses first, than worry about the camera.
Agreed. If you're new, get the D90. It's a great camera. And spend the difference on some awesome lenses.
Well... actually i'm not "new" to photography, i just said i'm new to DSRLs cause i've never had one. Nevermind lenses, i'll only get the best ones or none at all, i'm aiming at the 2.8 "kit"; the 50mm 1.4; the 85mm 1.4; probably the 20mm 2.8... with all this lenses i should have enough for everything except a 300mm 2.8, but that's not on my league yet. I guess i just want the best DX and the best FX body... and i want the D3 for traveling and i need it to be bulletproof for harsh weather. My other question is: if i buy them, will they be worth it? will they last as expected? and should i wait for the 14th of April??? THANKS for posting everyone, u're really helpful!
Whatever comes out April 14th won't compete with the D700\D3.
When you say you are new to DSLR's, what specifically are you new to. If its the "D" (Digital) part of DSLR, then by all means, go crazy with your pocketbook and get the latest and greatest. If you don't understand the fundamentals of Aperture, Shutter speed, and Light, then I highly recommend a D90 or lower. The thing with the higher end models is that they have no full auto mode, so you will need to get familier with what you are doing.
The good news is that even if you don't know, its not that hard to learn the basics... provided you have a small measure of patience (which, based on the tone of your posts you don't BTW). Of course you could make the arguement that many photographers use the full auto mode as a crutch that prevents them from getting better.
If money were no object, I'd still get the D700 over the D3 (or even the D3X) because it is smaller, and I have little use for the faster frame rate (in the situations you need it, you can get it by using the battery pack).
As far as lenses go, I'd grab a 24-70 (which I own) for most of my shooting, and keep a 70-200 f/2.8 (Which I wished I owned) on my D300 for when I need telephoto. I'd carry the excellent Tokina 11-16mm DX as a wide angle alternative. You could grab the Nikon FX Pro Zoom, but that's an awefull lot of glass to carry around. The 50mm f/1.4 is also very nice for low light situations.
s.a.l. - as for travel photography I will go for D3 and d300 (if it's this camera that will be released on the 14th of April). Indeed d700 is smaller, but only without grip, with grip it's actually bigger, also dual CF slot on d3 may be handy on the way. As for the lenses, my travel set is:
- sigma 10-20 (found it usable on full frame starting from 14mm)
- nikon 24-70
- nikon 70-200
- all packed in Lowepro Toploader 75 (+ lenscase 3 + lenscase 4 + waistbelt + utility case)
it covers most of my needs and I also manage to keep the weight on a decent level (total of +/- 6kg) and moreover, no problems with taking the kit on board.
I see that I'm not the only one with the desire for 300/2.8 :)
Yeah i know... whatever comes on the 14th will just lower some prices, hopefully, though i'm not expecting to buy anything of that since it will just take too long to get here (Argentina). And i also know i must sound like a baby craving for ice-cream but i've put this off for 2 years now. Like i said i'm not new to photography: been shooting film with a Pentax K1000 and a compact digital, in full manual mode that is, and i'm pretty happy about what i know already and the results. I'm studying photography at a school as well, just started this year. No genius here but i learn fast. I guess i'll start with the D300 and work my way up. Same thing with lenses, 50mm 1.4 and save save save.
The 300mm... well... 2 or 3 years from now perhaps? maybe more, who knows...
You must log in to post.