D300 vs. D90

disco41

disco41

Messages
446
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All

Is the D300 (not "s") really £400 better than the D90?

Just wondering as i intend buyin one or the other in the next month or so.

Anyone with any ideas? :thinking:

Cheers

Andy.
 
cant fault my D90, would love a D300, but cant see the benefit for normal use.....
 
Depends what you want from the features, £400 could go along way to a good lens.

Autofocus points 51 v 11, faster flash sync rate, larger shutter range, 12/14 bit RAW files v 12 bit files, no limit of buffer size, 6.12 fps v 4.5fps....no movie's v movies...pro body v consumer body, D90 has auto modes, both will work with most of the Nikon lenses, advantages over the D40/D60 models.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/CAMDB/compare_results.php

Personally, the D90 isn't a bad camera and you be able to take images straight out of the box, the D300 doesn't give you this luxury, and you will need to learn how to get the best from the camera as its a pro body, so you need to understand how to set up the camera.
 
I think it really depends what you are upgrading from. I upgraded from a D40 to my D90 because I thought that a D300 would have been to large a leap.

Part of me now wishes I had went for the D300, but not because the D90 isn't an excellent camera. It's predominantly because I wish I had the AF system that the D300 has. I've used both side to side, shooting motorsport and the difference between the two was noticeable.

Is it worth 400 more?? I'm not sure it is. :)
 
All depends on what you shoot IMHO. I have a D300 and a D90 in my possession and if you don't require faster shooting or the more sophisticated AF system, I'd say go for a D90 and put the other money towards lenses.
 
pete.rush said:
Depends what you want from the features, £400 could go along way to a good lens.

Autofocus points 51 v 11, faster flash sync rate, larger shutter range, 12/14 bit RAW files v 12 bit files, no limit of buffer size, 6.12 fps v 4.5fps....no movie's v movies...pro body v consumer body, D90 has auto modes, both will work with most of the Nikon lenses, advantages over the D40/D60 models.
Click to expand...

I noticed the lack of a mode dial on the D300, how do you select either P/A/S/M? And does anyone looking to buy a D90 or better really use the scene modes anyway?
 
Fuuudge said:
I noticed the lack of a mode dial on the D300, how do you select either P/A/S/M? And does anyone looking to buy a D90 or better really use the scene modes anyway?
Click to expand...

i share the camera with the wife. she uses the kit lens and the auto functions. Me, i delv into manual and have some tasty lenses to play around with.

the D90 wasn't a hard decision for me.
 
The way I see it is if you want to take still digital photographs then buy a camera for that purpose. If you want to take digital movies then I would have thought a digital movie camera would be the better option.

I would have thought that using a combo camera like the D90 Nikon, some compromise on quality either with movie mode or still mode must be made.


I would like to see a movie from a D90 and the same with a dedicated digital movie camera to make a proper judgement

In answer to Fuuudge query quote" I noticed the lack of a mode dial on the D300, how do you select either P/A/S/M? And does anyone looking to buy a D90 or better really use the scene modes anyway?" unquote


The reason is that Nikon cameras further up the range are considered to be professional cameras therefore not needing a mode dial (No picture scenes)
Instead as on my D300 to get P-A-S-M there is a mode button which is kept pressed whilst turning a dial on the rear of the camera body. Where the mode dial was is now replaced on the D300 with 3 buttons ( quality-WB-and ISO ) under which is a dial for single or countinuous low and high speed
shots together with Live view- timer and Mup shutter release.

In other words the D90 and the D300 are built for a different target market,dare I say from the consumer end to the keen amateur/semi pro/pro end.

I upgraded from the D70s to the D200 to the D300 because of the added features, the first 2 cameras didn't have dust removal feature and this was a huge bug bear added to which the D200 was heavy on battery power. Also I got fed up with having to go into the menu most times to alter main settings which on the D300 are now on the body via swithes or buttons

I have to say that the D300 is far better than the previous models in every respect and I have no intention of upgrading again in the forseeable future. The D300 if comming up the range just adds so much more in picture control


Hope this answers your question
Realspeed
 
I got the 300 just because of the build quality plus I got it for a great price. If you are looking at a 300 I would look sooner than later as they are getting harder to find, have you noticed how few are in adverts now.
 
If you need the build quality, faster AF performance and more FPS, D300.
If not, or you want movies enough to forego these - D90.

Both great DSLRs, you can't really go wrong whichever you choose. If you shoot sports or other fast moving subjects on a regular basis - I'd go with the D300.
 
I think the basic image quality is the same but the main difference for me is the lack of AF fine tune on the D90. All of my lenses have benefited from this feature and the difference in sharpness is well worth the extra cost of the D300 for me.
 
realspeed said:
I would have thought that using a combo camera like the D90 Nikon, some compromise on quality either with movie mode or still mode must be made.
Click to expand...

There speaks a person who has clearly never used a D90.

There is no difference in IQ whatsoever between the D90 and D300. All the D300 will offer extra is functionality/fps/AF/build.
 
The only way to tell will be to try.

See if there are some people nearby who you can meet with. If you have a camera already with a favourite lens take it with you. When eith them take the same shot on each camera.

Then you just need the raw files from each. Compare them at your own leisure.


I started with a fuji s340 (I think) x6 optical. Moved to dslr on the minolta 5d. When this started to play up looked at a friends d200. Quality on pic was great so I bought a d300 jessops (spread cost interest free plus 25 ukp to pay off within one year). Since then it's been lenses (105 macro, followed by tokina 11-16, 200mm f4 and now a 50mm f1.4)

If you try the camera bodies out, find one that feels the best in your hand and gives you the image quality you want.

Funds permitting look at the d700. Problem there is cost. Lenses are more expensive (new ones)
 
IMHO video has only been added "because they can" - its relatively simple once you've got live view and at minimal cost. It does give them an excuse to bump the price up even *** most would be happy without it!
 
i've only had my d300 for 2 weeks but i'd say its worth it for the autofocus alone, the functions are easier to access without delving into the menu (think gloves in the winter ) also my hands are quite big so i find the d300 so much easier to handle than the d80 i had before. just my 2p worth !
 
Thanks for all the input people.

I think its got to be a D300 for the AF mainly plus extra control etc, will shoot motorsport two mates race, one in a Tiger kit car and other races a RS250 ex gp two stroke bike!

Again thanks for the info.:thumbs:

Cheers
Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top