Nikon D90 or D300s

N

Nsmall

Messages
41
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Everyone,

I am looking to get a new camera. Right now I have been using the D200. I bought this camera second hand about 2 years ago. Now I have trouble with getting sharp images. When I got the camera, I got excellent sharp images, but now I no longer get good sharpness......
I know this well because when I had purchased the camera at a camera shop I also got the 50mm 1.8 lens. I then later on got the 85mm 1.8 lens. The sharpness was outstanding.

Just to give an example, if I shoot say abot 50 images...maybe about 15 of those images will come out tack sharp. Using the my camera on a tripod with the same camera settings and lighting.

I do not even remember now how many accutations the camera had when I bought it, but I feel that my D200 has done it's time. I am just too nervous to shoot people now beacuse of the sharpness issue.


Now my decision, what would you all think....should I purchase the Nikon D90 or the Nikon D300s.

Mind you, I really do not care about the HD feature on the D300s. Both these cameras have pros and cons as anything, but I have read many good reviews about the D90 and it is much less expensive than the D300s.

Will it be a great down grade from the D200 to the D90?

Thanks in advance!

Also just out of curiousity, does it really make a difference on the speed type of a compact card you use? I do know that there is a buffering that occurs when your cards are slow, but on the images it'self does it make a difference?
 
Both are 'upgrades' to the D200. D90 is a plastic body though.
Both have HD video.

Personally I'd go D300s. It will be a familiar feel to the D200, pro body and all.

I bet you will love it.

Unless you want to save money of course, then get the D90.
 
Got a D300, had a D90. Is the D300 worth almost twice that of the D90... Probably not. What would I buy if I needed to buy new kit... a D300. I like the fact there are more controls on the body, and shooting for paid work I find that essential. I do sometimes miss the higher ISO of the D90 and the IR Remote that works with D90. As a 'hobby' camera I dont think you can beat the D90, but the weather-sealing and build makes the D300 better imo.
 
A D90 won't feel like that much of a jump for you, the af system is the same. The ISO performance will however be an improvement. If I was moving from a D200 I'd get the D300s, purely for the pro feel you are used to, the af system and the ISO performance.
 
I did the same as you, went from a D200. The D90 just really didn't feel that much like an upgrade at all. It's the same 11 point autofocus, slower continuous shooting mode (only by 0.5fps, but still), and the HD video is far more wobbly than on the D300s. So, I decided to stick with my D200.

I wasn't going to bother upgrading to the D300 either, but when the D300s came out, the addition of HD video (and Nikon offering to send me a free SB-900 if I bought one) just made it too irresistable for me to say no.

8fps shooting mode (with the grip and EN-EL4a, 7.7fps with AA NiMH batteries), 51 point autofocus with 3D tracking, able to lock the aperture and exposure on HD video shooting, Active D lighting, dual card slots (so I can shoot RAW+JPG and have raw files go to the CF and JPG to the SDHC - or use SDHC exclusively for video clips), bigger and higher definition LCD, CMOS instead of a CCD, built in dust removal, etc.

If you don't care about the HD video, then I'd probably suggest you look for a new-old-stock D300, or pick up a factory refurb or second hand unit at the right price.

The only real differences between the D300 and D300s are the HD video mode, and the high speed continuous shooting speed without the MB-D10 grip (6fps on the D300, 7fps on the D300s).

I still kept my D200 though, for times when I want to shoot ISO100, and for events (I have the WT-3 WiFi grip for the D200, which makes life much easier).
 
D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s, D300s,


Hope that helps
 
Aside from the age/sharpness question posed by Nawty above, if it was between the D90 and D300s I'd have to recommend the D300s. The D90 does have the compactness advantage, but that's all. The D300s output seemed very slightly sharper, and the build and external controls (not to mention the 100% viewfinder) are well worth having, as is the AF fine tune should it be needed. Having said all that, once I got a D700 I sold the D300s and kept the D90 - the size/weight advantage make it a good travel/backup body and the IQ is near enough to that of the D300s as makes no difference.
 
I would sort out the sharpness issue first before spending a load of cash. I cant fault the D90 and unless you need the extra tough body and external controls I wouldnt pay the extra for the d300, I am waiting for the D400!!!!

oh and I bought an S5 pro in the meantime!
 
I upgraded from the D90 to the D300s.... So I'd say go with the D300s - feels like a camera (esp with the MB-D10 added) - then again its down to personal opinion - best way is to go & try either one & see how it feels to you...
 
OK so those with a D300 recommend that, no surprise! If money is not an issue, then yes I would agree. However the D90 body is £569, against £1139 for the D300.

Now good although the D300 is can it really be twice as good?

Prices fro Park as a comparison, £60 cashback on D90 at the moment
 
Dave, they're recommending the D300s, not the D300 (they're two different cameras) :)

I actually recommended a used or new-old-stock D300 (which is closer to the cost of a D90 than a D300s) as he isn't interested in the HD video abilities.

And yes, personally, I felt the D300s was definitely worth the price difference.
 
Kaouthia said:
I actually recommended a used or new-old-stock D300 (which is closer to the cost of a D90 than a D300s)
Click to expand...

Actually a new old stock D300 is closer to a D300s as it costs more according to camera price buster :|

Nsmall, I was faced with this choice when upgrading my D50 and opted for the D300s. I have to admit I love it and although the D90 is a good body, it just wasn't for me. The extra features I now have have converted me :) As Dave points out, the D300s owners are opinting towards that body, but maybe that's because that's what they have and find that it's a great body! :D
 
I had a similar conundrum last year, though at the time it was for a
D90 vs D300.

At the time i didn't have enough for the D300. I saved up, Nikon then released the 300S and a D300s came up on here second hand which I bought. I have to say the camera is beautiful to use and handle. The D90 just didn't quite do it for me as much a a great camera it is. I think it's mainly as i was using an F4s which is like a housebrick. I did however recently buy the grip as well which makes it even better to handle
 
ka$h said:
Actually a new old stock D300 is closer to a D300s as it costs more according to camera price buster :|
Click to expand...

Depends where you shop.

As per Simon's link, MPB has the D300 for £749 (I'm guessing that's second hand, but I've seen new-old-stock available as low as £800). That's a lot closer to the £659 Warehouse Express demands for a body-only D90, compared to the £1139 they want for the D300s.
 
Everyone, thank you so much for all your input and I have made my decision and will purchase the Nikon D300s.

Thanks all!
 
I don't think you'll regret it, enjoy :)
 
:agree:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top