D90 or D300s

<p>Folks, I'm sure this question has been asked over and over again - I did search through, but couldn't find a satisfactory answer. So here's my dilemma:<br /><br />

<p>I had a D40+kit lens until recently (which I sold). I still have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which I got for it, and a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 D, and so, I will stay with Nikon equipment (not letting the Canon 7D seduce me!).</p>

<br />

<p>I am not a pro, but am pretty serious about squeezing the most of any camera I have - I did this for my D40, and will do this for my next camera. My specific interests are low-light (the D40 with my fast lenses took pretty good low light pics, but was really bad with AF), fast action (could be in low light), macro (need to buy a dedicated lens someday - right now, I'm managing with turning my 50mm around with an adapter).</p>

<br />

<p>My upgrade budget is $2000 - weight, size & MP ratings are not a concern. Will prefer to stay with DX, as I already have a DX fast lens. Regardless of what I get, I've promised my wife that I will not upgrade the body for the next 5 years, at least :) I however have her approval to buy a new lens once a year or two!</p>

<br />

<p>I've shortlisted both D90 and D300s as potential upgrade candidates. I'm not interested in the D300 though, as I would like to have video capabilities (however mediocre it might be). My question for you is: Is the extra bucks for D300s really worth it, for the kind of interests I have? I know this will have a steep learning curve, but I see this as a good learning opportunity - especially with this being a semi-pro camera.</p>

<br />

<p>On the other hand, would the D90 suffice, leaving me enough money to even buy a fast macro, or wide-angle lens (albeit from a 3rd party lens maker)? I just don't want to have any regrets, say, deep in a dark cave, trying to get pictures of stalactites, and the camera desperately trying to focus....</p>

<br />

<p>As you can tell, I am leaning towards a D300s, and my wife's leaning the other way ;) If you think the D90 + new lens is the way to go, please convince me! If the differences between the D90 and D300s are too small to notice in most photographic situations, and all the interests I have can be easily managed with just the D90, I'll go with it. If not, I wouldn't want to compromise, and keep suffering for the next 5 years! :) Please let me know your suggestions. Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

</p>

<p>Hi Satya,<br>

I think that low light performance of the D300s and D90 are pretty much the same and it looks like you don't have old lenses where the D300s has an advantage.<br />Build quality of D300s is better too, it has dual card slots but these differences are not the reason you should upgrade (unless you really need it).<br>

You said you'd like to shoot fast action, so the D300s's AF is superior to the D90's - It will focus much faster. Also, frame rate of the D300s is better which can be helpful when shooting fast action.<br />Regarding the video - the D300s can autofocus (in some bizzare-inconvenient way), not sure about the D90. Anyway, it's really not something I should count on, I suggest you try that in a store to set the expectations...<br />Whether it's worth ~800$ to you ? You're the one to tell. <br /><br />Personally, I've upgraded my D70s to D300s few weeks back and very impressed with the D300s. <br />I assume both D90 and D300s will be considered old in 5 years, but like you said, I'm going to keep this body for a while and wanted to go with the best I could afford.</p>

 

<p>save your marriage. get the d90.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, would the D90 suffice, leaving me enough money to even buy a fast macro, or wide-angle lens (albeit from a 3rd party lens maker)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the price difference you could almost get ultrawide <strong>and</strong> macro lens.</p>

<p>Think about it. D300s with only Sigma 18-50/2.8 sounds a bit depressing.<br /> D40 had ancient AF even when it was introduced three years ago, D90 will be much better and probably adequate. It seems low light fast action is more like occasional subject than your bread and butter? Also, I've shot quite a bit with Sigma 18-50/2.8 and while it isn't a slouch I wonder how much more accuracy and speed you're really going to get with D300s compared to D90. I guess D300s is better tracker but if you're more like simple center point focus and shoot kind of guy (like me) the difference shouldn't be earth shattering.<br>

Edit: Yes, I can read, occasionally. You have the Sigma and 50/1.4, check.<br>

But still, tell a bit more about what you shoot and how badly D40 has let you down. For some reason your post does not entirely convince me that you need a $1800 body that is geared towards sports and wildlife. Or at least don't need more than ultrawide and macro.</p>

<p>D90 is pretty big upgrade from D40. Not as huge as D300s would be but we're still talking about different class in features and controls.</p>

<p>Semi-pro? I'd say D300s is full blown professional camera for its features and price point, it's the pinnacle of DX format and not everyone is excited about 35mm and the insane size and weight of D3. D700 is no more pro than D300s and it's even 1fps slower.</p>

<p>D300s - D90 = $800</p>

<p>Sigma 10-20/3.5-5.6, $480.<br>

Tamron 90/2.8 Macro, $460.<br>

= $940</p>

<p>Tamron is a recognized excellent performer. Sigma is the cheapest ultrawide but very nice if you can live with its slowish max aperture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just don't want to have any regrets, say, deep in a dark cave, trying to get pictures of stalactites, and the camera desperately trying to focus....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it's so dark that you can't get a focus lock on a rock then you quite likely need a tripod and manual focus anyway, or flash(es). ;)</p>

<p>I'm with Kari on this, but with two reservations:<br>

-Since you plan to have it for 5 years, if you are not one of those people that are careful with their equipment, the more reinforced body of the D300S <em>might</em> be important. Of course, if you had the D40 and found it durable enough, the D90 is more durable than the D40 so you'll be fine and as Kari said you'll have extra budget for lenses and a tripod.<br>

-Since you mentioned you might want to shoot low-light action, if you get into a situation where you would need a flash or long exposure but you want to do AF tracking of a moving subject the D300S has a better chance of succeeding than the D90. The only situation I can think of off the top of my head is if you're photographing dancing guests at a wedding reception.</p>

<p>D90. Lenses before body.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with lenses before body. However, one of my D300 cameras is in the shop right now so I have been forced to shoot a bit more with the D90. Can't stand it. The D300 has a better AF system and that alone is worth the difference in price to me anyway. One big difference would be in Macro photography. I use a Macro to get wedding rings on flowers type of shots with the 105mm. Getting the D90 to focus on this is an exercise. The D300 is much better. All of that said, if I hadn't shot with a D300 all this time, I would probably be happy with our 90s!</p>

<p>if ur going to spend $2000, see if you can find a used d700, FULL FRAME + fast glass is unbeatable for low light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D300s with only Sigma 18-50/2.8 sounds a bit depressing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kari, very funny description...kind of what I was thinking. </p>

<p>Satya,<br>

The only thing in your question that sounds like the D300s might have an edge is "fast action". But if you managed that so far with the D40, then the D90 will already be a god-send. Andrew's point on durability is the only other things that could remotely point to added value for the D300, but with normal care, a D90 should easily keep going for 5 years.<br>

Is the Sigma a HSM version? If so, all your lenses being AF-S, is the D5000 maybe even an option? For video, I can see merit in the flip-screen-thing. Or also looking for the larger size of the D90/D300s bodies?</p>

<p><strong>Kari Vierimaa: </strong>Yes, low light is just an occasional subject, but it's a subject that really challenges me - the goal is to be as realistic as possible with the color rendition, especially of post-sunset colors of the sky, with a bird or two in the foreground. Besides birds, I like capturing runners silhouetted against a late evening panorama... just a couple examples with which the D40 is often incapable of doing justice. The other limitation I hit often is the lack of an internal motor - I crave to use my 50/ 1.4 in more dynamic situations, and it's just not practical with a D40.</p>

<p>>>> If it's so dark that you can't get a focus lock on a rock then you quite likely need a tripod and manual focus anyway, or flash(es). <br />A lot of caves don't allow tri/monopods or even the use of flash - so I want to maximize my chances. I'm not an avid spelunker, but I do like to go underground once in a while.</p>

<p><strong>Andrew Lynn: </strong>I'm pretty careful with my equipment... so I'm not sure if the sturdier construction & weather sealing is that much of a deciding factor. My D40 has actually been out in light rain and snow briefly, and didn't have any problems, so I think I should be ok with either of my options...</p>

<p><strong>John Deerfield: </strong>Your observation is interesting. Why do you think the D90 struggles to focus for a macro shot? Is it due to the lighting conditions?</p>

<p>So here's what I see so far: the AF & frame rate capabilities are a plus for the D300s, given my interests. The price difference, and the fact that I can get the camera and two decent lenses is a plus for the D90, not to mention saving my marriage ;) Now if I can only come up with a conclusive and convincing speech supporting the D300s...</p>

 

<p>"Regardless of what I get, I've promised my wife that I will not upgrade the body for the next 5 years, at least :) I however have her approval to buy a new lens once a year or two!"</p>

<p>If this is true, then it sounds like you can have your cake and eat it, too. Go for the D300S and get the glass as well. However, does your wife know that many good lenses cost more than the 300? This might change her mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of caves don't allow tri/monopods or even the use of flash - so I want to maximize my chances. I'm not an avid spelunker, but I do like to go underground once in a while.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought shooting in a cave was just a figure of speech or something. :D<br>

Sounds like you have real use for stabilized glass. Perhaps trade the Sigma for Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC (=VR). That along with AF-resurrected 50/1.4 should take care of pretty much any handheld shooting you can think of.<br>

Ok, it's not very helpful to introduce even more new money holes. Sorry.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is the Sigma a HSM version? If so, all your lenses being AF-S, is the D5000 maybe even an option? For video, I can see merit in the flip-screen-thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Compared to D90 D5000 lacks 920k display, battery life, controls, large prism viewfinder and AF motor. Image quality and AF sensor will be as good as in D90 but otherwise it's surprisingly small upgrade from D40/D40X/D60/D3000 considering the price. :/</p>

 

<p><strong>albert lee: </strong>A used D700 is an attractive option, but the future investment I'll need to make with quality FX glass that'll actually make it worth having the D700 is way beyond my budget... so I've decided to stay with DX.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter Willemse: </strong>The Sigma is an HSM, but my 50/1.4 is not an AF-S. So the D5000 would not be an option for me.</p>

<p><strong>Harvey Serreze:</strong> Unfortunately, my wife does know the cost of good lenses, even from 3rd party makers. So, with every good lens I'll buy, the "year or two" will tend more towards the "two" part :)</p>

<p><strong>Kari Vierimaa: </strong>Haha, I did mean real caves! Your suggestion of a VC lens is actually sounding very attractive. I can sell my Sigma for atleast $300, and get the Tamron for $600 or less, early next year.</p>

<p>Another combination I'm considering is the D90 and a Nikkor 18-200 VRII, which would be good for most bright daylight situations. My fast lenses can emerge when the sun goes down, or I'm indoors... how's that sound?<br>

<br /> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your observation is interesting. Why do you think the D90 struggles to focus for a macro shot? Is it due to the lighting conditions?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Saying that the D90 struggles might be a bit of a misnomer. It is just that the D300 is faster and better. And macro shots tend to show this off more since we are trying to get a focus on a very small point in some cases. After using the D300 for quite some time, I find it frustrating to go back to the D90. Much the same as someone using a D90 and then trying to do the same thing using a D40! One would find using the AF on the D90 that much better. If not upgrading for 5 years, I would want a D300.</p>

<p>The 18-200 doesn't get fabulous reviews although it's not a bad lens. I find myself at the wide end of my 18-70 all the time -- have you considered the 16-85? The extra 2mm on the wide end makes quite a difference and that lens tends to get better reviews than the superzoom. You can get a 55-200 very cheaply which would get you the range you're looking for, or even a 70-300 (more money, but more range).</p>

<p>D90 + 16-85 would give you more creative options at the wide end while being a great walkabout combination, *and* come in under budget which would please your wife.</p>

<p><strong>John Deerfield: </strong>Thanks for clarifying on the D90's performance vis-à-vis the D300. </p>

<p><strong>Mike Mason: </strong>That's an interesting option - you're right, the 16-85 does have good reviews. However, since I'm looking to get a dedicated super wide lens in the future, I'd rather have an all-purpose superzoom for casual travel... that's what drew me to the 18-200.</p>

<p>I've put getting the 18-200 on hold for now, as I finally made a decision on the camera: I'll be going for a D300s :) Yes, I have convinced my wife on the AF-advantage it has, and how it can help with my specific interests. I'll have to manage with the two fast lenses I currently have though, and will have to wait a while for my next lens... hopefully sometime next year!</p>

<p>Thank you all for your suggestions - I truly appreciate your guidance. </p>