D90 vs. D300 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

D90 vs. D300

(15 posts) (10 voices)

Tags:

Photographer going from film to digial. I guess I

nctrnlrdhd

new member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1
offline

I am debating a d90 or a d300. I am just getting back into photography. I majored in it in college and since then have used either my old Nikon FE or an Olympus Point and Shoot. I have truly enjoyed my changes to use digital cameras. I was shooting with a friends old Canon xti and was frustrated with the slowness in dark light and the noise at anything lower than 800 ISO.

I have read review after review, and have narrowed my choices to the D90 with the 18-105 lens, or a new D300 with an 18-200 lens. I hike and shoot all along the trail, but have a bad back and would need a zoom lens, rather than an assortment of lenses. My budget is 1500 max., but I do want to be able to bracket and shoot in raw. I also like the benefit of live preview so that I view my histogram ahead of time. Recently I am shooting Jazz musicians at House of Blues and my silversmithing portfolio. Additionally, whatever I but will need to last me a good 10 years if that is reasonable.

I went to RIT and when I discuss histograms and bracketing some people wonder what the heck I am talking about. So if you could help me with the selection of my first digital camera, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Posted 4 years ago #
desinderlase

new member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2
offline

I own d90, it is excellent at high iso, virtually the same as D300, currently the best on the market for crop size sensors.

For hiking: D300 is more durable, weather sealed (you will need lens that is weather sealed also), but also heavier, bigger, more expensive. I know, the rain is killing me...

But if that's your first camera: D90 is easier to use, more user friendly, lighter, more compact and you have video if you ever need one.

Why not using D90 with 18-200? If you really need all-round one lens, that is a way to go. 18-105 is good lens, but it's up to you to decide if you want longer reach or cheaper lens with better image quality. 18-200 is a bit soft on both ends, so you would want to avoid extremes. 18-105 is good on any aperature or focal distance. Also, if you take more wide angle landscape shots, you can consider 16-85, slightly better build than 18-105.

My recommendation is that you go for D300, if you need all weather solution. In other cases there is no need to buy more expansive camera.

On D90 i would not recommend using Live View. Only for Macro shots, and recording video. Contrast-based auto focus is slow and the screen is difficult to be used on bright days.

D90 does not have Live Histogram. When I bought D90 I though that I would miss it, but then I found that it's not needed. You can always check histogram after you take the shot. "Easy exposure compensation" helps fixing exposure really fast.

I hope it helps

Posted 4 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

16-85 is an excellent lens, especially coming from a kit 18-55. Some (photozone.de) consider it to be even better than 18-200, not by much though.

I would also suggest avoiding LiveView as with LV your camera is only held by your hands, and even worse when your hands are stretched out. This in turn creates more camera shake compared to holding the viewfinder to your eye. To test this take your mobile phone, pack of cigarettes, etc and try to align its straight edge with some other straight edge further away (window frame, LCD-frame, etc), now for comparison, hold the straight edge so that your eye is just looking over it and align it again ... the difference is quite noticeable and this could also mean the difference between delete or keep.

Posted 4 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

I would say go with the D90 as well. It doesn't sound like the extra money on the D300 would get you much. You could get the D90, 18-200 lens, and 35mm f/1.4 for less money than the D300+18-200, and have a nice lens for low light shots, it should be great for shots at the house of blues.

Posted 4 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

Just one extra thought, you say you have an FE (lovely camera). If you have some good old lenses on the FE you'd like to use on digital (AI, not pre-AI), the D300 could be worth your while because it will meter with them, whereas the D90 won't. Otherwise I still say go with the D90.

Posted 4 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Go with the D90. The only reason to like the D300 is
1. Faster Frame Rate (useful if you do sports shooting)
2. 14 Bit Raw (I have no idea why this is useful).
3. Better Autofocus (actually very useful for all kinds of stuff, but the D90 still does AF very well).
4. The ability to fine tune AF on each lens (a feature I wish I had as I start to get better glass, but that doesn't really matter for the kit stuff).

Posted 4 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

i find myself in a similar situation as you. . .and you really should just go and try them out!

Coming from a D40x, the D90 was just slightly heavier, and eye-piece coverage was about same (i think they are both 95% coverage?), and it was blessed with ALL the controls I ever wanted without having to dig through the menu (as I do with the D40x, which includes WB/ISO/Meter/Aperture/etc.).

NOW, the D300 is a separate beast. If you have existing SD/SDHC cards, they won't carry over. If you have existing AI lenses, the D300 will work with them. THE COVERAGE IS AWESOME - you look through that eye piece, and it's world of difference, and the AF is just sick. Yes, the D90 will suffice, but you have to experience the difference.

Of course the D300 has EVERY button you want on the camera, so menu's are rarely touched, and combined with battery grip, you'll be able to shoot at 8 or 9 fps?!

BUT, if you're hiking and have a bad back, and really want minimal lenses, the D90 + 35 1.8G + 18-105 would work. . .you just might want more later. . .

The D200 is $569 right now, almost $2000 cheaper after nearly 2 years on the market (Jan 2007?). . .so since the D300 was introduced last spring (Feb/April 2008??), I suspect there might be a steep drop next year if you wait. . .

Posted 4 years ago #
AcquaCow

senior member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 80
offline

14 Bit Raw (I have no idea why this is useful).

14-bit is useful for grabbing extra shadow detail...it doesn't help much with anything else.
I've been using it for when I'm forced to underexpose entire sets of photos due to poor lighting conditions.

There is a direct example here: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/nikon-d300-d3-14-bit-versus-12-bit.html

-- Dave

Posted 4 years ago #
mac

new member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 2
offline

i would buy the d90:

its cheaper
has video recording (wich isnt a plus for me)
and has better image quality (according to http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings)

Posted 4 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

how is the D90 better than a D300 if they are using the same sensor?
- Nikon D90
Nikon D90
DxOMark Sensor
72.6
100
Color Depth
22.7
26
Dynamic Range
12.5
15
Low-Light ISO
977
2526

versus D300s:
- Nikon D300
Nikon D300
DxOMark Sensor
66.6
100
Color Depth
22.1
26
Dynamic Range
12
15
Low-Light ISO
679
2526

I guess if you want good low light capabilities. . .D90 is the choice. . .

Posted 4 years ago #
mac

new member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 2
offline

i was asin myself the same question, i guess its not the exact same sensor

Posted 4 years ago #
gregory

member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 15
offline

Actually it was written somewhere that D90 has a little bit different ( also newer) sensor than D300 which has some improvements over this used in D300. It is for sure different if DxO measured the difference. It has also different exact number of pixels which is rounded to 12.3 milions when we describe the sensor.....

I have D90 and nikkor 18-200 VR II.As a begginer and amateur I'm satisfied with the results I obtain. I don't like how the lens is behawing when shooting in the direction of light source( not nice flare) but overall quality is very good for me.

I'm wondering now on buing additionaly new nikkor 35 1.8 AF-s lens which has very good opinion and has small flare. And some proffesional advice this lens to work with for improving photography sikills..... :)

Posted 4 years ago #
AcquaCow

senior member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 80
offline

I guess if you want good low light capabilities. . .D90 is the choice. . .

Maybe if you are shooting direct to jpeg, but with 14-bit raw, the D300 can capture a lot more detail in low light than the D90 can.

You can shoot 2 stops down in 14-bit raw and still get the same amount of detail as the D90 in 12-bit, and have much sharper pics due to the higher shutter speed.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/14-bit-raw-12-bit-part-two.html

-- Dave

Posted 4 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

If you dont have a bad back. Get the D300. Get The D90 weight is really an issue. Metering with Old lenses is not a big issue. Just use the histogram and retake. Unless you have heaps of old lenses that are very very good.(tell us what they are)

As for the lens. The 18-200 VR is a nice all rounder. Although it a bit heavy and the lens extends anoyinly when hiking(Get a silicone band to stop it drifting) It is better than carring a wide angel and telephoto and having to change them. It also depend on what level of IQ you want. If you want the best IQ then you may have to get Good quality expensive and Heavy lenses. other wise teh 18-200 is nice. I use it for hiking all the time. Used to use it on a D70. The D90 is good enough for misty rain it is preety tough and can handle abit of knocking about. but for rain You will want to get a weather protection covering anyway.

If You can forgo the telephoto range then the 16-85 is wonderful. I am planing to get the 16-85 and a 80-400 for my hiking trips.

Posted 4 years ago #
AcquaCow

senior member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 80
offline

If You can forgo the telephoto range then the 16-85 is wonderful. I am planing to get the 16-85 and a 80-400 for my hiking trips.

I'd see if you could nab an 18-70 used first, as it'll be cheaper and a few stops faster, which will matter as the sun goes down (if you hike in early morning, or late into the afternoon).

-- Dave

Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

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 vs. D300

Reply