d90 or d300s. dont know what to do

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

d90 or d300s. dont know what to do

(83 posts) (27 voices)

Tags:

12…4 Next »

jmichael99

junior member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 7
offline

so i have a d60 now and shoot in full auto mode. Im slowly trying new settings shutterspeed and ISO settings. my main reason for this upgrade is because of the low light functionality of the d90 and d300s. Next year i plan to try going to kids baseball games and takes pictures and sell them to there parents, with there permission of course.

I was pretty much all ready to jump on the d300s when it came out but them i was reading on here that there is no auto mode on it. Which i know is bad but im still learning and want the option there. and from what iv read the d300s will be better with sports pictures.

in the end im still a "n00b" and looking for direction
if it matters my current lens are the kit lens for my d60 and the 70-300mm VR lens pretty much everyone has

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

If your still "learning the ropes" then you will do good getting a D90. Actually I think your fine with the D60 and spend the money on faster glass. Indoor gym shots are very tricky with anything other than wide aperture. Even then you've got to work on getting the action down as it happens no matter your frames per second.

Don't be fooled that a "newer" "better" camera will give you the instant results your looking for. Yes the D90 has better low light abilities and the D300S has that 7fps, but it's still a better idea to invest in "newer""better" lenses first. Finish learning how to use your camera before jumping to the next model.

You can think about upgrading when the D90 replacement gets announced in a year or so. But for now learn to use your camera and have fun doing so.

Thanks for posting and welcome to the forum Jmichael99.

Posted 3 years ago #
jmichael99

junior member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 7
offline

thanks for the reply

more of my shots will be out doors

I do agree with you on keeping the d60 and get the upgrade do the d90 later but when i picked up my freinds d5000 and took shots when the same settings i was using i noticed a big difference at the ball game i was at. this is why im wanting to upgrade. the d60 has been a good camera to me for the year or so iv had it. And since ill hopefully be making a little cash on the side i can justify the cost :)

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

What kind of differences? Brighter pictures? More accurate color?

Were you shooting in RAW or JPEG?

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I would recommend going to a camera store and handling both cameras. I have a D90 and find it a remarkably capable camera. It was so good, in fact, that it was several month after buying it and getting into more difficult macro work that I had anything that wasn't well exposed and in excellent focus. It was such a shock, I thought I'd gained infallibility.

On the other hand I have some older Nikon lenses that will work better with a D300s, so I plan to buy one in a month or two.

The D300s is faster, slightly better in low light, but heavier, costlier and a bit more complicated.

I also agree that it's the better lenses that matter most and that the D60 should serve you well for a while. When you shot with the 5000, were you using the same lens?

Posted 3 years ago #
jmichael99

junior member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 7
offline

the difference.

at a baseball game at night. his d5000 was able to capture the runners on there way to first where on mine the runner was blured. his picture was also more sharp than mine. We were both using the same 70-300mm VR lens.

a few other things i liked about his was the 11 point auto focus vs my 3. the faster FPS shots were also something i was wanting too...

Posted 3 years ago #
nau

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 266
offline

in yr case I would invest in glass and as NikoDoby said get body a bit later ... u cant go wrong they only drop in price

D90 is a great camera
D300s is a little bit over priced at this stage

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Jmichael99 were both camera's shooting in full auto mode? Each camera has very different ways of "reading" a scene. So you can't compare each if they were in auto. Also your friend might have steadier hands than you or a better shooting technique. Don't just assume you have the wrong camera. Too many variables to actually say their D5000 is a better than your D60.

If your only shooting in Auto everything then the D300S is definitely out of the "picture" for you. You'd have more questions about using it then you would your D60! Just stick with your D60 and perhaps get some used glass. But if your all convinced about getting a new camera then the D90 will do.

But really just learn to use your D60 first !

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

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

Jmichael99 - as Niko wrote before, get a better glass, as the difference between this two cameras are really not as big, I mean You should get at least couple good pictures, if You haven't than it means there's something wrong with Your technique and if I were You I will focus more on this.
If You still think that d60 is not the camera for You, go for d90, as d300s is not a camera for You, but firstly get some good glass and learn the technique.

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

@jmichael99
One well-known photographer said: Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner.
In this case it can be adapted to: Buying a Nikon D300s doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon D300s owner.

Don't expect that a D90 or D300s will take considerably better pictures than your D60, you have to learn how to take them. The the D90 or D300s make some procedures simpler for the photographer, but as you are still using the green mode, those simplified procedures won't help you much. When I got my D40x (first DSLR) I set the dial onto M and have rarely used the A or S modes. In the beginning it was a real pain to get any photos right but I didn't give up.
Check the post with links here: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=472 and go to the store and get yourself a copy of Michael Langford's Starting Photography and start reading it, many consider this to be the best photography textbook but most of the basics is anyway "set in stone" so you'll get the same information from any beginners book, but I would still suggest this one.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

It helps to understand the theory associated with depth of field. I almost always shoot in "A", since I can quickly adjust the aperture to achieve the best combination of d-o-f and shutter speed.

If the d-o-f is inadequate, your photo can look unacceptably out of focus. If your shutter speed is too slow, you can get blur. A super fast lens can allow you to shoot at a fast shutter speed, but unless you have sufficient d-o-f, it doesn't necessarily matter. One of the reasons I buy smaller, slower, cheaper lenses. Since I shoot mostly at 5.6 - 11, the higher speed simply gives me a brighter viewfinder and shallower d-o-f for focusing.

I agree with Monty, read and study. Photography has always been technology in the service of art and reporting.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Ted since you say you do a lot of macro work I would think you'd prefer the brighter viewfinder of fast glass. People don't realize the difference through the viewfinder that a 2.8 or 1.4 lens will make when all they've ever shot with is f3.5 or f4 as their max aperture on their "cheap" lenses. That's the reason I get faster, more "expensive" lenses. For a brighter viewfinder and because I know I can use a shallow Depth of Field if I want to. Fast glass isn't just about using them in low light situations.

The larger viewfinder is also why I prefer full frame cameras. I'm use to the big bright view of 35mm and medium format cameras....both film and digital. Look through a D40's scope and then put your eyeball up to a Hasselblad. It will "open" one's brain and eyes up !

My very first "pro" digital camera was the Olympus E20. I hated having to squeeze my eyes through the tiny view of that camera. Luckily it had a tilting LCD and "live view" (even back then!) so that made it somewhat bearable to use. I like Olympus glass I just can't bring myself to use their 4/3rds camera viewfinders !!!

As for my preferred exposure mode...I think I also use "A" aperture the most. Though "M" manual comes a close second. Keep in mind that even when your in A,S,or P modes you can still adjust BOTH aperture and shutter to your liking. You don't have to accept the settings your camera is giving you. It won't always be correct.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Hi, Did you try using the "sports" mode on your D60. It should set the camera to get optimal pictures when you are taking .. well ... sports. There is some real advantage of moving to the D5000 or D90 especially in night sports. The best option of course is to spend $15,000 and get "REALLY GOOD GLASS" and a D3. The thing is in those conditions things can get expensive real fast.. if you can post a few images with the exif intact then we may be able to tell why you were having issues. Like what the others said(but rephrasing), you may get just as bad pictures with the D90 because you didnt know how to take advantage of the camera's capabilities.

There is a lot to learn just with your D60. Try figure out what the various modes do. You should be able to duplicate the results from each of the different modes. eg sports, portrait, night, backlit.. etc. using S,A,and P settings with the +/- compensations. once you are able to figure out what all those those modes are then you can start to think about the DXXX series. Otherwise you will be taking worst pictures with a D300S than with the D60 and missing opportunities while trying to get the settings right. It would also be very frustrating as it does not have any modes to help set the camera. it assumes you would know how to get what you want. There are probably Dozens of different "Modes" an experienced photographer can get out of a D300 including the most used ones already programed in the D60/D90.

PS a tripod may help too.. even with VR

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Or a good monopod. The carbon fiber ones from Gitzo are almost weightless and work. They are expensive, but are guarantee for life (in US) and will outlast almost anything else you buy. I'm using one I bought in the early 90s, still looks like new.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

As heartyfisher suggested, Jmichael99 post or give us a link to some of your pictures so that we can help you understand why your not satisfied with your D60's sporting performance.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Yeah, like others have said, buying a D300s or a D90 won't help you understand your camera any better. You might as well save your money and learn with your D60.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

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

jmichael99 this was your question: "d90 or d300s. dont know what to do" guess it was more of a statement but you said nothing about glass so I'll address what you asked.

First as mentioned before, the D300s has no auto mode so if this is something you rely on now, it may be a good idea to look more closely at the D90 for now. Compared to the D60, yes it's much better in low light I don't care what mode you shoot in. It can just handle it better. The D60's ISO is the same as the D40's and I live in a house with both cameras so I know that comparing them is more comedy than anything. The D300s will have a better AF system which will be better in low light (I know all three AF systems between D60, D90 and D300/D300s)and more accurate overall.

As far as ISO capabilities of the D300s being a bit better than the D90's that's speculation and wishful thinking and hoping on all our part (and in part the trend but not always). No one has a D300s yet so until we see what it does in low light, plan on considering it the same as D90 at best for now. Basically if you need a camera that's better in low light now, get the D90. You're shooting sports, therefore you have a season in which you shoot so waiting for something like a D90 replacement will mean you will miss more of those low light shots. If you're a seasonal shooter like I am, get what you need now. The D90 is a great camera to learn on and for you I wouldn't step up to the D300/D300s line just yet even though I would normally suggest that all the time.

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

You definitely want to invest on lens rather than a new body.

Financially, lens keep their value longer than bodies.

Optically, lens are a very big part of the quality of your image and the lens you currently have are far from optimal.

I would invest in faster lenses and maybe a wide angle. If you think 18mm wide on your kit lens is wide enough for the kind of photo you do. Then forget the wide angle but you might be missing something with that 10-18mm focal length.

You could get a 35mm ƒ/1.8 for DX as a good normal fast lens. The 50mm ƒ//1.4 is a very very good portrait lens and will autofocus on your D60. Finally, I would trade that slow 70-300 for a 70-200 ƒ/2.8 VR and keep your kit lens for the wide end. If you ever want to a wide angle: it's either the nikkor 10-24 or tokina 11-16 ƒ/2.8

I would invest in lens before upgrading my body, that way you can still learn more about photography with your D60 and still upgrade your image quality with the lens.

Once you get a nice set of lens and once the D60 gets even older, it will be even more justified to upgrade to a possible D400 or even upgrade to FX!

Posted 3 years ago #
mikeo21

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 100
offline

As a former d60 owner and fellow photo noob I have a little advice. The d60 is a pretty capable camera. I'm sure youve heard that before and still think the better hardware will improve your chances. Do yourself a favor and search flickr for photos taken with the d60 by somebody who knows their stuff. You will be impressed.

I agree with NikoDoby's suggestion of getting some faster glass. I had only my VR kit lens, and I bought a 35 1.8 and absolutely loved it. the DOF is small, meaning proper focus is crucial, but its all part of the challenge. The 50 1.4 also wouldn't be a bad idea.

The difference between the d60 and d5000 on auto just shows how Nikon's sensors/metering have improved. Just learn the "exposure triangle" fully to the point where you can look at a scene and approximate what settings you will use. Assign ISO to the function button.

In short... keep your camera and work on your technique!

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

Sorry for the off topic, but what do you mean under "DOF is small"?
You do know that when you close the aperture you will get a deeper DoF and as it is rather a wide angle lens then the DoF isn't that shallow to start with, especially when comparing it to tele and macro lenses. Proper focus is crucial in any photo unless the image is defocused on purpose.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Yeah, the lens and the guy behind the viewfinder makes a big difference. I get great results with my D40. That's almost a 3 year old camera.

I yearn for newer cameras, but I do love the D40 very much.

Posted 3 years ago #
mikeo21

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 100
offline

sorry, I should have been clearer. the OP was talking about using his camera under low light, so when I recommended the 35 1.8 it was for using it close to 1.8. IIRC its sharpest around 2.8.

when using the 35 1.8 anywhere close to 1.8 DOF is pretty thin, at least I've found. Of course not AS thin as a longer focal length lens. Obviously this also varies with subject distance. Focusing can be more difficult here for sure.. i.e. focus on the nose instead of the eyes.

Sure, he could just stop down, but then he could of just used the kit lens instead.

The only advantage I've found with the prime is the fact that it is fast, and also the fact that it forces composition by movement of feet. If I didn't need fast glass or thin dof, I'd personally have no reason to use the prime.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

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

If you shoot the 35mm at 1.8 and focus on the nose, the ears will be out of focus.

Posted 3 years ago #
jmichael99

junior member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 7
offline

thank you everyone for your replys! it helps me alot. because of yours posts i have ruled out the d300. i might still get the d90 and once i get better get the d400 when it comes out.

for those who wanted to see some of the pictures i took they are posted here:

http://www.jwmichael.com/nikon/

i dont know how to pull the exif data out. i just know how to view it lol

i did try the sports setting on the d60 but the pictures turn out bad and i deleted them

what would you recommend as a good lens for shooting sports? i just want to make sure i understand something too. the lower F number the faster the lens is and can "freeze" the action better right?

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

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

Pretty much yeah. The lower the F number the wider the aperture which is called a "faster" lens. I know a lot of sports shooter like to use the 70-200mm2.8. I don't shoot sports and I know it's a specialty subject much as wildlife so I will not speculate on it much.

Posted 3 years ago #