D300/s to replace D90?

benners

benners

Messages
1,131
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
hi everyone...
not quite the straight forward question. I have a D700 as my main camera, which is great and I use my D90 as a backup/second body. Doing a fair bit of event photography, and lowlight stuff, I usually use both... D700 + 70-200 f2.8 and D90 + 18-50 f2.8.

i know the D700 is amazing in lowlight, but it's starting to show up the results from the D90. D90 images look a little flatter and colours don't seem to pop as well.

I was wondering if I might see an improvement on the D90 by investing in a second hand d300/s? Would love a second D700 but finances won't stretch that far!

so i guess simply, is the D300/s better than the D90 in lowlight?
 
The Sensor is pretty much the same, so the only benefits you get will be build quality, AF, and FPS improvements
 
If you were a sports shooter then it might well be worth it, but as an event shooter it's difficult to imagine how, in terms of end result, the D300s would better the D90. The image quality provided by the sensor is, for all intents and purposes, the same.

I can only think of one reason that it would be worth it, and that is if you really value having a bigger body, and you want a pretty much identical control layout to the D700.
 
ah thanks for the info chaps, sounds like it's just a sideways step then, all things given. Looks like that's what I'll be using until I can afford a second d700!
 
Benners, consider a D7000. That really is a step up from the D300/D90. I have one and a D700 and I don't consider either my primary camera. The D7000 has incredible resolution and IQ.
 
Tamron probably has different color characteristics, could try upping color in camera
 
The colours from the D90/300 are muted compared to both the D700 and D7000. I didn't like them at all.
 
The23rdman said:
Benners, consider a D7000. That really is a step up from the D300/D90. I have one and a D700 and I don't consider either my primary camera. The D7000 has incredible resolution and IQ.
Click to expand...

ah that's an interesting idea, may well look into that further!

The23rdman said:
The colours from the D90/300 are muted compared to both the D700 and D7000. I didn't like them at all.
Click to expand...

I love the D90, and it was an amazing step up from the D60 for me... but now having the D700 as the main body, I feel a bit let down when I have to use the D90 now!
Don't get me wrong, it's a great camera and has served me well. In daylight it's amazing, but is definitely a couple of steps down when it comes to low light compared to the D700.
 
The d7000 is probably a good stop better than the D90. At least a stop better.
 
As an outfield shout, have you thought of trying a D3100? I've got a D700, a D60 and owned a D90 and have a D3100 at work. The IQ and low light performance of the D3100 is frightening for the money, sure you don't have all the controls but for a tiny little lightweight camera it is awesome.
 
Nawty said:
As an outfield shout, have you thought of trying a D3100? I've got a D700, a D60 and owned a D90 and have a D3100 at work. The IQ and low light performance of the D3100 is frightening for the money, sure you don't have all the controls but for a tiny little lightweight camera it is awesome.
Click to expand...

interesting thought! I'm sure it's a great camera for the money, though I'm not sure an entry level camera would be a noticeable improvement on the D90, even with newer technology. And I wouldn't feel confident with it.
 
It has better ISO performance and better video, but that's it. If it means anything I'd still take the D90 over it any day but it depends on what you want.

When I get around to it I'll be changing the D60 for a D3100.
 
Slaphead said:
If you were a sports shooter then it might well be worth it, but as an event shooter it's difficult to imagine how, in terms of end result, the D300s would better the D90. The image quality provided by the sensor is, for all intents and purposes, the same.

I can only think of one reason that it would be worth it, and that is if you really value having a bigger body, and you want a pretty much identical control layout to the D700.
Click to expand...

While the sensor is almost the same, there are other advantages of the D300/S over the D90. Better weather sealing, better Auto Focus (with more focus points, 51 v 11, and more of the more accurate cross type focus points, 15 v 1), Higher frames per second, Dual Memory Cards (D300S) for instant backup, 100% Viewfinder.

That said, as an upgrade to a D90 the D7000 is the actual successor to the D90, though positioned at a slightly higher level in the market. And if ISO performance is the main consideration then looking here the D7000 is better in low light, though it doesn't match the D300S on some features. Whether those features are important enough to consider the D300S over the D7000 only the OP can decide. :shrug:
 
redhed17 said:
While the sensor is almost the same, there are other advantages of the D300/S over the D90. Better weather sealing, better Auto Focus (with more focus points, 51 v 11, and more of the more accurate cross type focus points, 15 v 1), Higher frames per second, Dual Memory Cards (D300S) for instant backup, 100% Viewfinder.

That said, as an upgrade to a D90 the D7000 is the actual successor to the D90, though positioned at a slightly higher level in the market. And if ISO performance is the main consideration then looking here the D7000 is better in low light, though it doesn't match the D300S on some features. Whether those features are important enough to consider the D300S over the D7000 only the OP can decide. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I admit I much prefer the handling of the 300/700 over the d7000, but as the op owns a D90 already the size of the d7000 will not be a problem.

If Nikon ever decide to put that sensor in a pro body I'm all over it.
 
The23rdman said:
If Nikon ever decide to put that sensor in a pro body I'm all over it.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they will put a better sensor in the D300/S replacement as I don't think it's a good idea them having too many models with the same sensor only differentiated by features and build quality. Why buy a £1500 camera when a £500 camera can give essentially the same quality of image?:shrug:

Previously the top of the range model would get the newer sensor and it would then work its way down the range, but that hasn't happened this time. The extra features would have to be very good to tempt people to the top model with the same sensor as the bottom model and anything in between.
 
redhed17 said:
Hopefully they will put a better sensor in the D300/S replacement as I don't think it's a good idea them having too many models with the same sensor only differentiated by features and build quality. Why buy a £1500 camera when a £500 camera can give essentially the same quality of image?:shrug:

Previously the top of the range model would get the newer sensor and it would then work its way down the range, but that hasn't happened this time. The extra features would have to be very good to tempt people to the top model with the same sensor as the bottom model and anything in between.
Click to expand...

Nikon have been using Sony sensors recently, so there's a reasonable chance that the D400 might have the 24MP sensor that's in the A77.
 
interesting points, thanks for all the input so far!

basically where I'm at, is I have a D700 as the main body, and D90 as second/backup.

I'm noticing the D90 (naturally) lagging behind the D700 particularly with lower light shots, which means I'm trying not to use it unless I really have to, which starts to defeat the object.

Without having the budget to get a second D700 (which would be the ideal!), is there anything I can replace the D90 with which will give a notable improvement in lowlight shots?

D7000 seems to be the favourite so far...
 
benners said:
Without having the budget to get a second D700 (which would be the ideal!), is there anything I can replace the D90 with which will give a notable improvement in lowlight shots?

D7000 seems to be the favourite so far...
Click to expand...

As far as APS-C cameras are concerned there is not that much difference between they top of the range cameras from each manufacturer. :shrug: The D3/D700 was a big jump in the market as far as ISO performance was concerned, as was the D300 for APS-C, but there hasn't been that huge jump in ISO performance since imho. :shrug:

The APS-C will always lag behind the FF sensor because of the physics in each type of sensors construction, bigger photosite etc. If the difference in performance is too great then another D700 may be your only choice to be satisfied. :shrug:

The D400 could when/if it appears be the one, but they are big 'could' and 'ifs'. :shrug: That there would be a big increase in ISO performance from a possible 24MP sensor (if rumours are to be believed) is debatable.
 
The D7000 high ISO performance looks remarkable to me. At least 1 stop better than a D90 or D300/s if not more. It's pretty remarkable. If it's over budget, there is of course the D5100 which shares the same sensor.
 
redhed17 is probably right, I'm not going to be content until I get a 2nd d700 :D
I was just interested to know if there was a 'missing link' between a d700 and a d90.

I may be tempted to sell the D90 and put that cash towards a D7000. although the guts may be similar (?), a camera which is 2 years 'newer' may simply be an improvement as it is more up-to-date...
 
Get a D7000.

Mine is fantastic and to be honest I just choose the aperture I want and leave the camera to do the rest on auto ISO - shoots up to 6400 with no issues. It really is fantastic and a real step forward IMO. Shoot loads in low light and never use the flash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top