Nikon D90 vs D300 - Advice?

[jaseone]

I ripped this from a NikonCafe post for reference:

dXOMARK IMAGE SENSOR
D90 72.6
d300 66.6
d40X 63.9
d50 55.2

COLOR DEPTH
D90 22.7
d300 22.1
d40X 22.4
d50 20.9

DYNAMIC RANGE
D90 12.5
d300 12
d40X 11.5
d50 10.8

LOW LIGHT ISO
D90 977
d300 679
d40X 516
d50 560

(The bigger the number the better).

Those figures are taken from the DX0Mark site.

Somewhat eye opening, eh?

 

[hogfaninga]

I ripped this from a NikonCafe post for reference:

dXOMARK IMAGE SENSOR
D90 72.6
d300 66.6
d40X 63.9
d50 55.2

COLOR DEPTH
D90 22.7
d300 22.1
d40X 22.4
d50 20.9

DYNAMIC RANGE
D90 12.5
d300 12
d40X 11.5
d50 10.8

LOW LIGHT ISO
D90 977
d300 679
d40X 516
d50 560

(The bigger the number the better).

Those figures are taken from the DX0Mark site.

Somewhat eye opening, eh?

Not at all. I owned both and I know what the real life difference is and the D300 is much better (I need the much faster frame per second a lot of the time---4.5 on the D90 and 6fps on the D300--I got the grip on my D300 which makes the fps 8). Plus it is easy to pick a website and use their numbers to say this one is better in certain categories. Go to any Nikon site where they compare the 2 and the vast majority say the D300 is a lot better overall than the D90. If I was someone looking to buy a camera or lenses this is the last place I would look for advice. Go to a dedicated Nikon, Canon, camera, etc. forum. There are plenty out there. Almost all professional sites say the D300 is superior to the D90 (one of the exceptions is Ken Rockwell who is a joke by most dedicated photographers). The D90 is better in some categories(not many at all and those differences are VERY small). In low light situation they are basically the same from my comparisons. I guess that can be debated, but for my needs it can't. As I said I had both. Like I said before they are in 2 different classes. Now if you own the D90 and it makes you feel better to think the D90 is as good then so be it. Kind of like the owners of a reg macbook saying theirs is as good or better than the Macbook Pro. If it makes them feel better then good for them.

I know you post a lot at the forum you linked, but as you know MANY people there that have the D90 wish they could of got the D300 and many people who have the D90 there are selling theirs for the D300. That should tell you something.

 

[jaseone]

I think a more apt comparison would be comparing a 15" MacBook Pro to a 17" that is if (am talking theoretical here) the 15" scored better in all benchmarks except 3D gaming and the 17" used the new unibody with the 15" having the older less sturdy body plus the 17" as it is bigger had more accessible custom controls.

 

[hogfaninga]

I think a more apt comparison would be comparing a 15" MacBook Pro to a 17" that is if (am talking theoretical here) the 15" scored better in all benchmarks except 3D gaming and the 17" used the new unibody with the 15" having the older less sturdy body plus the 17" as it is bigger had more accessible custom controls.

Macbook= Consumer----Apple's description
D90= Consumer-----Nikon's description
Macbook Pro= Professional----Apple's description (can easily be debated)
D300= Professional----Nikon's description

I stand by my analogy.

Many professionals use the D300 as their backup as you know.

Listen I'm not dogging the D90. It is a very nice camera, but overall it can't be compared to the D300. That being said both can produce amazing images.

 

[jaseone]

I know you post a lot at the forum you linked, but as you know MANY people there that have the D90 wish they could of got the D300 and many people who have the D90 there are selling theirs for the D300. That should tell you something.

It mainly tells me a lot of people don't do their homework prior to making a major purchase, before pulling the trigger you really should know if a D300 or D90 is more suitable for you and the type of shooting you do. Some of that is also people that get a D90, start participating on a forum and want to be more like the pro's on the forum so go and get a D300.

The differences between the two including their advantages and disadvantages are well known so it shouldn't be too difficult to make a decision. It is also a decision I believe that should be made by the individual, there is no right or wrong choice, if it works for you then it works for you!

 

[hogfaninga]

It mainly tells me a lot of people don't do their homework prior to making a major purchase, before pulling the trigger you really should know if a D300 or D90 is more suitable for you and the type of shooting you do. Some of that is also people that get a D90, start participating on a forum and want to be more like the pro's on the forum so go and get a D300.

The differences between the two including their advantages and disadvantages are well known so it shouldn't be too difficult to make a decision. It is also a decision I believe that should be made by the individual, there is no right or wrong choice, if it works for you then it works for you!

If someone is on a camera forum before making a purchase common sense says they are doing their homework prior to purchase. Another thing is almost everyone who got rid of their D90 for the D300 posted how better the D300 was. Now you can say they are lying, but I doubt it sense I have seen that said many, many, many times. You have to probably because you post at Nikon sites. The D90 has very, very little advantages over the D300. Low light--maybe. I didn't see it though when I had both, but a few have. The difference is minimal if at all.

Also most real pro's don't shoot with a D300 as their primary camera. It is mostly for the serious amateur and as a backup for a pro. The D90 is for the Ashton Kutcher fans and soccer moms (that is a joke).

 

[jaseone]

If someone is on a camera forum before making a purchase common sense says they are doing their homework prior to purchase. Another thing is almost everyone who got rid of their D90 for the D300 posted how better the D300 was. Now you can say they are lying, but I doubt it sense I have seen that said many, many, many times. You have to probably because you post at Nikon sites.

Oh I have seen it happen plenty of times, heck if I held a D300 I would probably lust over it myself but I'm happy with my purchase and knowing what I do I really don't think it is a worthwhile upgrade for me over the D90. Now the D700, that is a different story...

 

[hogfaninga]

Oh I have seen it happen plenty of times, heck if I held a D300 I would probably lust over it myself but I'm happy with my purchase and knowing what I do I really don't think it is a worthwhile upgrade for me over the D90. Now the D700, that is a different story...

We agree there. The D700 is nice, but by the time I upgrade my D300 there will be a replacement for the D700 which is what I will most likely get. There is no doubt FX is tempting, but right now for my needs FX isn't compelling enough to shell out the money for it.

At the end of the day, both the D90 and D300 are extremely nice bodies and we are fortunate to be able to own them.

 

[jaseone]

We agree there. The D700 is nice, but by the time I upgrade my D300 there will be a replacement for the D700 which is what I will most likely get. There is no doubt FX is tempting, but right now for my needs FX isn't compelling.

At the end of the day, both the D90 and D300 are extremely nice bodies and we are fortunate to be able to own them.

Starting to get off topic here but oh well... My next purchases in order will be some prime lenses, a speedlight or two and possibly a tripod, although I'm still not sold on the fact of absolutely needing a tripod unless your type of shooting demands it. Then after that I may be in the market for a new body so we will see what Nikon brings to the table, although I think the D300 will see an upgrade much sooner than the D700.

 

[hogfaninga]

Starting to get off topic here but oh well... My next purchases in order will be some prime lenses, a speedlight or two and possibly a tripod, although I'm still not sold on the fact of absolutely needing a tripod unless your type of shooting demands it. Then after that I may be in the market for a new body so we will see what Nikon brings to the table, although I think the D300 will see an upgrade much sooner than the D700.

I agree with what you said. I will be spending my money on lenses now. I got a very nice tripod, but honestly I don't use it that often. I wish I held off on that and bought/saved for another lens. Live and learn I guess.

 

[Abstract]

In case you don't know the D90 is made of plastic and the D300 of magnesium alloy. There is NO comparison to that. Everyone I know who has the D300 loves the " 3 Kings" button. I think it is in a great position. I guess if you are a point and shooter you wouldn't need it. You would wish it had the amateurish scene modes like the D90 has in its place.

I suggest you sell your prosumer D300 and get the D90 if you don't take advantage of the D300 advantages. PM me and if your is in good condition we can do a trade. The scene modes are nice for point and shoot shooters.

Thanks for assuming a lot about my ability. Apparently, I can't prefer some things from a lower-end camera because it means I have no idea what I'm doing. Besides, I have never used a scene mode before in my entire life, p&s or DSLR. What am I going to do with that dial?

But thanks for suggesting that I sell my D300 for a D90, possibly for the one you have. I'm sure I'd benefit greatly from such a transaction.


And yes, I realized that the D300 has a magnesium alloy shell. I have picked up my own camera before. However, not all plastics are the same, and some of today's plastics are as strong as metals, if not stronger. Besides, even if Nikon could reduce the weight of their premium products a bit more, they'd have little to gain from doing so. The main reason they don't really feel the need is because "weight" is used as a form of subconscious-level marketing, where heavier things are often seen as sturdier and well constructed even if it isn't. Apparently it works on people. They'll believe that this is why the D300 costs so much more than a D90, because on paper, they can't justify the additional $500 of the D300 (or whatever the difference is) based on specs alone. In reality, the D300 is better not because it's sturdier, but for a lot of small reasons with regards to it customizability, and the quality of the AF points available. It's not just about the number of AF points.

Even if the D90 was out, I would have still bought the D300 because it's still a better camera, and I use the 51 AF points in various situations. I said I don't use 51 points in general shooting, that's all. I had to shoot a concert after coming back from my 4 week trip to Japan, and I doubt I would have been able to focus in darkness as well as I could have with a D90. My D300 has 15 cross-type AF points. The D90 doesn't.

However, for the OP, there isn't a lot better about the D300 unless he needs the AF points, continuous burst rate, and all the customizable configurations and memory when shooting JPEGs.

If I was someone looking to buy a camera or lenses this is the last place I would look for advice. Go to a dedicated Nikon, Canon, camera, etc. forum. There are plenty out there. Almost all professional sites....

So jaseone's link to NikonCafé wasn't professional enough? NikonCafé is one of the PREMIERE Nikon websites.

 

[hogfaninga]

Btw good post Macjenn. Of course magnesium alloy is stronger than the plastic Nikon uses in the D90. It is stupid to say otherwise.

If the above poster would of read my post, I was referring to another link that guy posted. That was pretty obvious though.

As far as NikonCafe being the premiere Nikon site. Well first of all it is just a message board. Granted they have a lot of talent there. Premiere? That is a matter of opinion and certainly not fact. I like it though, but I like 2 others just as well or better. The 2 I'm thinking of are a lot more than just a message board.

 

[Apple Ink]

Not to be offensive to any poster but....

The DxO scores are in most essences... useless and worthless in real world tests! Going that route.... Sony makes the sensors for Nikon and itself and the sensors used in its own bodies give better scores than others yet Sony boasts of real bad High ISO performance amongst others.....

But I still recommend the D90 over the D300 and some very good glass!

 

[dalemanning]

Had both. 300 rules

Plain and simple. Had the 90. Currently have the 300. The 300 is worth the money. It is the best valued camera out there. Pair with 2.8 lenses and it will blow you away what you can do.

 

[jaseone]

Not to be offensive to any poster but....

The DxO scores are in most essences... useless and worthless in real world tests! Going that route.... Sony makes the sensors for Nikon and itself and the sensors used in its own bodies give better scores than others yet Sony boasts of real bad High ISO performance amongst others.....

But I still recommend the D90 over the D300 and some very good glass!

Sony may make the sensors used in Nikon cameras but they do so based upon Nikon's specs and the sensors in the Sony cameras are not the same, Nikon simply use Sony to manufacture their sensors and that is as far as the relationship goes.

 

[Erendiox]

Wow guys. Cool down. Please don't turn my thread into an argument. Macrumors has been a really solid forum for me for years so don't ruin it. I've appreciated everyone's input, really. At this point I'm leaning toward the D300. I think I'm going to regret going for the D90 just to save money, and I'm confident I'll appreciate the extra features of the D300, especially support for older lenses. I'll keep referring to this thread as I make my decision.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[ChrisA]

Through my job I can snag the D90 body for a little under $800. I can get the D300 body for around $1200. I guess my question is whether or not the extra $400 that I spend on the D300 is money well spent. I'm hardly new to cameras, but I am new to DSLRs. On the one hand, there's nothing to be disappointed about with the D90's features because it would be my first digital camera. Maybe I'm overdoing it with the D300, especially since I don't even have any Nikon lenses yet.

So you are starting new, with zero nikon lenses....

I would say it all depends on your overall budget. You are after all buying a SYSTEM. Not just a body. So if for you spending the extra $400 on the body means you will be forced to skimp in other parts of the system then don't spend the extra money. But if you can spend the money and still afford the others parts you will need then why not?

Some facts to concider....

1) Don't expect the body to last forever. DOn't think "I'll invest in a good one and keep it for years. NO. DSLR bodies are like computers you will not want to use an old one. Film was not like this, you did keep your film bodies forever but digital is not yet a mature technology and is still changing.

2) After a while when your system "fiills out" you should have spent at least as much on lenses as you did the body. If most of the budget is in the body you are not getting the most for your fixed budget. Go with the cheaper body if you can't spend $1,200 on glass.

 

[Benguitar]

I am actually a Canon Rebel XSi guy, but I have heard amazing things about the D90.

Again it all depends on what type of stuff you are shooting.

 

[Nicholie]

Lmao. This is a most ridiculous debate. These camera's are part of the same line for Adam's sake!

Lets make it simple;

If the difference in price is a issue, the D90's image quality is just as fine as the D300 and that extra money would be better spent into glass. However, if it is not, the D300 has a few perks that are definitely worth the extra. Among those are the stronger body, faster fps, and beefier auto-focus system.

Don't let anyone tell you the "scene" modes on the D90 are a negative. No one said you had to use them, or any other feature some people may find "useless" etc etc. More features > Less Features as long as quality is kept to standard on those that matter.

In short, if you don't know enough about the industry or DSLR photography to not have to ask here, you're going to be perfectly happy with either.

 

[jaseone]

I actually find the scene modes on the D90 to be a plus, not for me but if I ever want anyone to take a photo with me in it as I have tried on several occasions to explain to look at the light meter in the view finder and if it has bars to the left then turn that back dial to the right until there are no bars and vice versa, most people just don't get it and get frustrated so now I just set it to a scene mode and hand it over for a snapshot.

 

[wheelhot]

Well both are APS-C sensor bodies so I dont see much difference in image quality except with like someone states more features that might/not be useful to the op.

My suggestion is get D90 and some good lens!!!, it doesn't matter if you have a D300 w/ 0 lens other then the kit lens, a person who owns a D90 w/ some good lenses will still beat the D300 image output cuz of glasses. Body helps mostly in sports photography where speed is key but other then that, I guess Glass is more important investment then body. Also throw in a flasgun while you are at it.

 

[DSG]

The D90 doesn't accept those older legacy lenses. The D300 does. However the D90 does have a built in AF motor.

OP: if you can get the D300 for $1,200 I would get that. I was looking at both the D90 and D300 and got the D300. I'm glad I did. I used my friends D90 and while it is nice it isn't nearly as nice as the D300 IMO. It is well worth the $400 more it will be for you.

Not true.

The D90 will AF with all AF-NIKKORs. The difference in compatibility between the D90 and D300 is that the D300 will provide exposure metering with non-CPU lenses (i.e. older, but not the very oldest, manual NIKKORs). It has, I assume, an AI-coupler, which is a little mechanical coupling around the lens mount that transmits the aperture setting to the camera body.

As far as plastic goes, do not assume that plastic bodies are poorly built - professionals spent the 1990s taking pictures on cameras that were largely plastic. If your livelihood doesn't depend on your camera then it is unlikely that you need anything better built than the D90. I don't think folks quite understand just how much abuse a press-pro gives his kit. While the D300 is lovely to hold, remember that in a couple of years it will just be a very sold container for some pretty underwhelming electronics.

Most importantly, go and try them both. A decent shop will have both, with batteries charged, and will let you try a range of lenses, including your own.

 

[hogfaninga]

Not true.

The D90 will AF with all AF-NIKKORs. The difference in compatibility between the D90 and D300 is that the D300 will provide exposure metering with non-CPU lenses (i.e. older, but not the very oldest, manual NIKKORs). It has, I assume, an AI-coupler, which is a little mechanical coupling around the lens mount that transmits the aperture setting to the camera body.

As far as plastic goes, do not assume that plastic bodies are poorly built - professionals spent the 1990s taking pictures on cameras that were largely plastic. If your livelihood doesn't depend on your camera then it is unlikely that you need anything better built than the D90. I don't think folks quite understand just how much abuse a press-pro gives his kit. While the D300 is lovely to hold, remember that in a couple of years it will just be a very sold container for some pretty underwhelming electronics.

Most importantly, go and try them both. A decent shop will have both, with batteries charged, and will let you try a range of lenses, including your own.

I meant the AI compatibility which the D300 has the ability to use those type of lenses and the D90 can't. I didn't mean that the D90 couldn't use older AF lenses. Of course it can since it has a built-in AF motor. I will be clearer next time.

I actually have some hand me down AI lenses that work really well on my D300.

Sorry to all for the confusion.

 

[Abstract]

As far as plastic goes, do not assume that plastic bodies are poorly built - professionals spent the 1990s taking pictures on cameras that were largely plastic. If your livelihood doesn't depend on your camera then it is unlikely that you need anything better built than the D90. I don't think folks quite understand just how much abuse a press-pro gives his kit. While the D300 is lovely to hold, remember that in a couple of years it will just be a very sold container for some pretty underwhelming electronics.

Thank goodness you came.

I said that today's plastic was good, but then someone dismissed it. *points up*

 

[Lbert]

Using an old 28-70mm AF 2.8F lens, how will the range and f-stop change when used with the new DSLRs, i.e. D90?

Please also address how a 50mm 1.4F AF lens is affected.