Tempted to sell my Sony A300 kit and buy a Nikon D90

p1tse

p1tse

Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
I moved from a nikon D40 and like the Nikon gear.

However I've built my Sony system up and almost have everything I want for it, but my thought in change would be the D90 being a better body, I know the Nikon system and have heard out of the camera Jpegs from the D90 is great, which is what I usually shoot in.

With the body costing more, I won't have a big a system to start off with, but I would be more than happy with D90 and something similar to my Tamron28-75 f2.8.

I would be looking a second hand prices. How much is the D90 new and expected good condition used?

Why the D90? I still want live view.

i should be able to cover the cost and free up some funds at the end with the sale of all my Sony Gear.
 
p1tse said:
I know the Nikon system and have heard out of the camera Jpegs from the D90 is great, which is what I usually shoot in.
Click to expand...

Start shooting RAW, get Lightroom and enjoy excellent quality photos. There is nothing that much better about D90. Processing and technique matters the most.

I could understand you fancy doing a bit of selling and buying new toys (a bit like me :D), but that is a different topic.

I wouldn't shoot jpeg even with D3 unless I had to submit photos to agency straight away.
 
hit the nail on the head, i guess it's like having a new toy and knowing the d90 is a nice camera (for my needs)

would like to shoot in RAW more, but that's a seperate topic (as funds don't permit for a decent computer for it and saving for something like a macbook with photoshop and capabilities to handle large picture files in hopefully the near future)
 
You do know that the A500/A550 are about to hit retail? (A550 looks to be initially ~£600 body only)
These have improved ISO/jpeg performance & both Sony's fast AF LiveView & slower main sensor LiveView for critical manual focus.

There are always going to be times during product cycles when another system has a body ahead of "your" system but that will then swing around a bit later.
It gets very expensive jumping from system to system every 18 months ... :p

P.S. the view from the other side http://www.bythom.com/index.htm read Past Peak?
 
I went from an a200 to a D90 and I certainly don't process half as many photos as I did with the a200.

Jpegs from the D90 are very good.

I do miss all my old Minolta glass though.
 
leaky5 said:
I went from an a200 to a D90 and I certainly don't process half as many photos as I did with the a200.

Jpegs from the D90 are very good.

I do miss all my old Minolta glass though.
Click to expand...


tell me more, what do you mean you don't have to process as much?

i don't have any monolta lenses

what do you think a good price is for a used d90?
 
I must say I have yet to see a Nikon DSLR that doesn't do brilliany JPEGS. Surprisingly, off the ones i've tried/had for a while, out of D90, D40X,D1x,D200, the D50 (had for 2 yrs) gave sharper results straight from the camera. Mind you that migh be cause I had it for so long and new all the tricks, but thats still with the sharpening off. The D90 does look fab, but I believe Sony have better LV focusing.
 
p1tse said:
I know the Nikon system and have heard out of the camera Jpegs from the D90 is great, which is what I usually shoot in.
Click to expand...

That's different from my experience. I've never been overly keen on jpegs from the D90 or D300.

Get used to using raw, you can always use raw + jpeg if you must.
 
I moved from Sony to Nikon. So had to buy the lenses again. I used this forum and got a couple at a good price which was enough for what I do.

Luckly I was able to keep all my Sony stuff aswell. Wife uses that now as she is getting interested.

I always and only really shoot in RAW. Just need to have plenty of cards if your out all day!
 
Why not go for the A700?

In my opinion that's a better camera than the D90.
 
I've owned both the A700 and the D90. I wont bore you with the details of why I swapped from the A700 to the D90 but needless to say it was nothing to do with the cameras themselves.

Major positives for the A700 are the in-body IS, the excellent Quick-Navi system and it has better build (even though the Nikon is far from shoddy!).

The D90 has top LCD, twin command dials, and better high ISO performance (even against the A700 with v4 firmware).

Both are top cameras and capable of producing excellent results. I am more than happy with the D90 which I currently use but if I had kept the A700 I am sure I would have been just as happy with that as well.

I wouldn't be too worried about lens selection in the Sony line-up nowadays. They have most bases covered with decent lenses (if not Sony then 3rd party brand).

Just remembered the A700 has twin command dials as well ... doh!
 
Euan said:
why do you think that?
Click to expand...

In built IS, I would never not have it now.

1. You can buy old lenses and have inbuilt IS, I got 3 lenses for £60quid, all super sharp and thanks to my body, they all are IS as well.

2. With IS I have taken 3-4 second exposure shots from handheld and not had a single problem.

3. Value for money, I think the A700 is better built and that the D90 is very expensive for what it is.

The only thing its missing is a top plated LCD screen, if the A700 would have had one, i would have brought it, as it didnt, the K20d satisfies all of my needs.
 
is the image stabilisation such a plus on the sony?

i went from nikon d40 to sony a300

i do prefer the feel and menu on the d40, but the a300 at the time gave me more options while upgrading, with live view, IS.

tempted by the d90 as have heard good reviews, i have liked my old nikon and it has live view and video which is good idea for odd pictures off my new son at ground level and odd videos
 
Lol i think you've already set your mind on buying a D90 to me it sounds like you'd prefer one anyhow and that's not because im selling one either :naughty:
You already mention you liked your D40 menu setup and feel better than the Sonys then the Jpg better straight of camera on the D90 it sounds like you've already made your own mind up ;)

My first DSLR was a A200 and for it money it was a brilliant camera i then went and upgraded to the D90 for better high iso ,Live view, more popular for accessories an lenses and the HD Video feature which i never thought use much and tbh i haven't but it gets used on the odd occasion and i never really missed the built in IS i started of with the Nikon 18-55 VR lens at first thinking i needed VR but soon after went for a faster glass instead.

Im now getting rid of the D90 as same reasons i did with the A200 i want to upgrade again to go for the Canon 5D II for better images, full frame, better at high Iso and finally better Video yet i doubt i'll use it loads its more the odd occasion than a big feature imo ...i think i'll try get more glass aswell this time and avoid upgrading for awhile.

Anyhow theres plenty of reviews and owners backing up the fact it is a good camera so its your choice i suppose yet i think you already have made it still.
 
throttle, i saw yours and got thinking again

i'll need to sell mine first before i purchase.

i've heard rumours of D90s, so may hang on and see if prices go down a little more

think my:
sony a300, sony 18-200, battery grip would be a great starter pack for someone ( i would need to see around £550 for this to be able to afford yours though)
 
Just had a quick google and found almost no D90s info i think the video was one of the main new features when the D300s appeared and the D90 already has video so i cant see them upgrading the D90 i could be totally wrong though :shrug: obviously if they did appear it'd hit the D90 price abit though.

Ive no idea on how much you'd get for your current setup i got more than i paid for my A200 and kit lens when i ebayed it i think it was price of pound went pear shaped and they went up in price i didnt put a buyitnow just bidders on a bidding spree at the time :D
 
i can't believe a local camera shop offered this to me:
my:
- sony a300
- sony 18-200
- sony grip
- sony flash
as part ex plus required £500 extra to trade up to a nikon d90.
d90 with kit lens is circa £800 so they were offering me only £300 for my gear (which is as new with all packaging)

in the meantime had a much better offer but still not where i want it to be honest
 
p1tse said:
i can't believe a local camera shop offered this to me:
my:
- sony a300
- sony 18-200
- sony grip
- sony flash
as part ex plus required £500 extra to trade up to a nikon d90.
d90 with kit lens is circa £800 so they were offering me only £300 for my gear (which is as new with all packaging)

in the meantime had a much better offer but still not where i want it to be honest
Click to expand...

Because they have to make a living, you will never get as much part exchanging as you would selling privately. The shop will want to make a profit on your equipment plus they will have to put some kind of warrenty on it, 3 or 6 months is the normal, because of this they have to take into account that if something goes wrong they will have to foot the bill and then they have all the overheads from having a shop, also remember that you would have paid vat if you brought new so instantly you have to take off either 15 or 17.5% off the new price, then work out the value, all businesses are there to make a profit.
 
there's something i miss about the nikon from my old d40 and so thought i could upgrade and buy a d90
 
will be looking at other posts on IS/VR

will I miss it though
i.e
A300 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 with IS
vs
D90 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 without IS/VR
(one of my favourite lenses)

thoughts on IS and anything else on these two combo's?
 
lots of people do miss it if they move from Oly/Pentax/Sony bodies to CaNikon.
Whilst there are of course IS/VR lenses for those 2 systems there are many that just aren't available whereas as you know any lens becomes stabilised on an in-body system.
 
bump:

anyone know how these would compare:

A300 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 with IS
vs
D90 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 without IS/VR
 
I have had both Sony and Nikon cameras and unless you are going full frame and have a lot of money to throw at lenses I would stick with Sony.

The in body VR is a huge benefit, as is the large stock of compatible Minolta lenses.
 
p1tse said:
bump:

anyone know how these would compare:

A300 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 with IS
vs
D90 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 without IS/VR
Click to expand...


Well on the D90 you will "lose" three stops of light so if you are had holding at 75mm you will need to shoot at 1/75 of a sec whereas on the Sony you may get away with 1/15 or 1/20 sec.
 
p1tse said:
bump:

anyone know how these would compare:

A300 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 with IS
vs
D90 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 without IS/VR
Click to expand...

Personally i think IS on a smaller focal length lens is not needed and is gimmicky or used to compensate for slower glass or poor iso performance.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Personally i think IS on a smaller focal length lens is not needed and is gimmicky or used to compensate for slower glass or poor iso performance.
Click to expand...

ShawWellPete said:
When you're on a budget compensating for slower glass is pretty handy as is compensating for poor ISO performance if you haven't got full frame.
Click to expand...

My original reply was aimed at the 2 lens the OP was asking about:-

A with tamron 28-75 f2.8 with IS
vs
D90 with tamron 28-75 f2.8 without IS/VR
which are both small focal length large aperture lens so lack of IS/VR shouldn't be an issue, but IS on something like a 70-300mm f4-5.6 is definitely worth it,.
 
And all I'm saying is that a 28-75 2.8 with IS is better than one without. I miss the IS on the my old Sony A700 even though I now have a D700 with a Nikon 24-70 2.8.

So I don't think it's gimmicky
 
ShawWellPete said:
Well on the D90 you will "lose" three stops of light so if you are had holding at 75mm you will need to shoot at 1/75 of a sec whereas on the Sony you may get away with 1/15 or 1/20 sec.
Click to expand...

thanks for your opinion

how do you work out the "lose" of three stops?

main pics i take are people shots, and i'm using my tamron 28-75 f2.8 the most. thinking i would like a nifty fifty though to play with at some point.
but whatever branded dslr i would like a versatile focal zoom, and so the sony inbuilt IS is handy.

looking at a link from the other thread VR/IS and longer focal length, i can see that VR/IS has it's definate advantage.

but as i take mainly people shots, and would probably grab a tamron 28-75 f2.8 and 50mm, i thought a nikon d90 would be a better body to have, but i keep thinking is it worth the extra £cash.

A300 body rrp was about £350 (give or take)
D90 body rrp is about £650

so obviously the d90 must bring some advantage at the cost difference (plus i miss some nikon touches from the d40 i used to have)

however with upgrading i would have to keep the nikon 18-105.

so another way for me to think about it is:
a300 + tamron 28-75 f2.8
vs
d90 with 18-105 kit lens
 
p1tse said:
thanks for your opinion

how do you work out the "lose" of three stops?
Click to expand...

With your camera you can hand hold lower shutter speeds than you would be able to with a Nikon, another way of looking at it is that for the same aperture you need 2-3 stops more light to get a sharp photo on the Nikon than the Sony.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the Nikon, it's a great camera but I don't think you will gain a lot. The A700 is a great camera so maybe look that way if you're keen to upgrade.

Having tried both systems my general view is that if you're on a budget the Sony mount offers massive benefits over Nikon. The Minolta "beercan" 70-210 F4 is a great lens for £100-150. You can not shoot VR on Nikon at 200mm at F4 for anywhere near that price.

If budget is not an issue than my current setup of D700 is with 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 is better than my old Sony A700 for me because of the low light performance but I still miss the in body VR occasionally.
 
thanks again for your opinion

definately makes me think.
a700 might be a better body to mine, but i've found the use of liveview which the a700 doesn't have.


what are your thoughts on these two:
a300 + tamron 28-75 f2.8
vs
d90 with 18-105 kit lens (until i can afford the tamron f2.8 again)
 
I only have one VR lens and I don't use it that much.

I really don't think I have missed the SSS that my a200 had.

With the D90 I can also bump the ISO higher than I could on the a200.
 
leaky5, i would probably have a similar setup to you first
how do you find the a200 vs d90
what lenses did you have on the a200?

what's the d90 kit lens and 50mm f1.8 like?

how much did it cost to upgrade and was it worth it?
 
I had three Minolta metal bodied lenses, kit lens and a Sigma 70-300.

The 18-105 is OK, I don't actually use it that much, my son uses it on his D40 more than I do.
I use the Tamron 55-200 about 80% of the time, followed by the 50mm.

My budget was £300 + what I sold the a200 & lenses for. With this I bought the D90 and all the lenses in my signature.

I did miss the Minolta lenses at first and thought maybe I should have just gone for an a700.

But I am happy with the results I now get from the D90.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top