$1,500 - Which Camera?

<p>I have $1,500 to spend on a "new" Nikon. I currently have a D70 and I will keep that as my backup. This camera will be used for Weddings and Studio Portraits. I have three choices that I'm battling over. Each of these are for the body only, no lens. 1. A brand new D90. 2. A slightly used D300 3. A used D2x or D2xs. I like that the D90 is new with no shutter actuations and I can save a little $ on it to put towards a better lens. The D300 has a stronger body and tighter tolerances but I've read reviews saying that the D90 actually takes better pictures. Then there's the D2x. I am leaning towards this camera because of how well they're built. I feel like I need to use this money wisely and it seems as though the D2x is built to last forever. Also, I like the integrated vertical grip instead of the add ons that I would have to buy for the other two. Any advice would be welcomed thank you!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D300 has a stronger body and tighter tolerances</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you plan to get a camera for "Weddings and Studio Portraits," I wonder whether the sturdy built of the D-300 ,or any camera with that feature, is necessary. The D-300 is also better in the AF, but you are not into sports/action photography so it makes it less important to buy a D300. The D90/D300 will give you one - two stop better ISO performance than the D2, which I think is an important factor to consider for wedding. You can get a D90 new from Amazon for less than $900 and you can save the $600 to buy a new lens. The D90 is much lighter than the D300/D2 and I assume the saving in weight can make it more comfortable to carry for shooting wedding.</p>

<p>D90 doesn't take better pictures... you and a great lens does that. I would buy good lenses!!</p>

<p>My personal preference would be the D300 - for the 51 AF points alone. Second would be the D90. Unless things have changed very recently, then the prices for used D2X and D2Xs differ markedly (I wonder why actually) with the latter usually being outside your budget. Have a look at Thom Hogan's website, believe in the D300 review he gives a quite detailed comparison with the D2X(s).</p>

<p>I appreciate the input. The previous post brings up an important point with me, and that's FAST Autofocus. I realize that some of that is the lens, but I want a camera that is fast and accurate with focusing.</p>

<p>The fact that I like the 51 AF points has actually less to do with the AF speed as with the fact that they are nicely distributed in the viewfinder and that I can almost always select one right where I want/need it - without the need to lock AF (or the use of the AF-ON button) and then recompose.</p>

<p>The RAW images on the D2X(s) are fantastic. For studio work, it has a base ISO of 100, which is really nice.<br>

If you're not going above ISO 800 at your weddings, it's a great tool. It's a pro body, pro build, GREAT battery life and you can save a few hundred bucks for better glass.</p>

<p>In about five years, that 51 AF points camera will sell for $200-500... or less. In 2006 I got a 17-35/2.8 brand new for $950+ tax, in DC. Today you can't find a new one without $1400-1500+tax.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In about five years, that 51 AF points camera will sell for $200-500... or less. In 2006 I got a 17-35/2.8 brand new for $950+ tax, in DC. Today you can't find a new one without $1400-1500+tax.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if that were true, that would be another 5 years. What is the OP going to do with those weddings in the next 5 years?</p>

<p>If you shoot weddings, in 2009, I would say forget about the D2X and D2Xs; their high-ISO results is simply no acceptable now. The D90's AF performance is questionable indoors under dim light. For weddings, I would get the D300 (or if you can spend more money, D300s, D700 or D3).</p>

<p>Another vote for the D300. We have 2x D300s and 2x D90s and I won't shoot with a D90 unless I have to. I have found in difficult situations the D300 just performs better. One example, a macro shot with the rings on the flowers. I can get it with a D90 and our 105VR, but I can get it a lot faster with the D300.... the AF is quicker and more accurate.</p>

<p>Worth mentioning that, in my view, the real strength of the 51 point (Multi-CAM 3500DX) system on the D300 versus 11 point (Multi-CAM 1000) system of the D90 is that the 3500 system has 15 cross-type sensors to the 1000's single type. Ever notice how only the middle AF sensor on your older camera seems to work acceptably well in low-light? It's a cross-type.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Even if that were true, that would be another 5 years. What is the OP going to do with those weddings in the next 5 years?"<br>

If I wouldn't know better... That was funny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"slightly used" D300 from someone you know or a 100% reliable and reputable source, take the D300.</p>

<p>"slightly used" D300 from eBay or a source you don't know, go with peace of mind and buy a new D90.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>D300 is more pro than D90, which is a fine camera but aimed at amatuers. D300 is a no brainer.</p>

<p>I wonder whether the OP is a professional wedding photographer, i.e. whether he is getting paid to capture images at clients' weddings. If so, I don't think you can get away with using sub-standard tools, unless all you shoot are those very cheap $300 wedding jobs.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the responses. As far as my level of skill, I have done 4 weddings and countless outdoor portrait sessions, so I guess I would classify myself as an Advanced Amateur/Fringe Professional with aspirations to take it all the way as my career. I am exceptionally dedicated and already invested in succeeding. (Blind Ambition I know, but I have to have it or I don't stand a chance!) So I would really like to get a camera that I know is going to last, that's why I was leaning towards the D2 series, but after hearing all of this I think I'll buy the D300.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer the lighter weight of the D90, but if you don't mind a little more bulk, then the D300 certainly will do the job, and give you 3 added benefits: Slightly faster and more controllable AF performance in marginal lighting, a more rugged, robust body, and a camera that will never cause your client to cast aspersions upon you for using amateur gear. Actual image quality is indistinguishable between the two cameras. </p>

<p>One question is, might you have any professional need to offer video clips to your clients? If you do, that would tilt the scales back to the D90, or the newer D300s, which is debuting just beyond your stated budget.</p>

<p>For wedding work, at this stage, I would not bother with a D2X or D2Xs, they are over-built for your needs, but lack the sort of high-ISO, low light performance you might need.</p>

<p>Actually, a D300 14-bit Raw file has far more headroom in post-processing than the 12-bit Raw file from a D90. In terms of files size, the D90 creates roughly a 10MB Raw file whereas the D300 creates a 15MB Raw file! Do you always need that headroom.... heck no. But on occasion it comes in real handy and as such the D300 can create a file that the D90 can't touch. I agree though, I would skip a D2 series.</p>

<p>Adorama has a Nikon USA refurb <a href="http://www.adorama.com/INKD300R.html?searchinfo=d300">D300 </a>for $1399.95!</p>

<p>It looks like the OP has pretty much decided on a D300, so this may be a moot point anyway. (And IMO among the options specified in this thread, it is a no brainer anyway.)</p>

<p>However, I wouldn't say there is no image quality difference between the D300 and D90. While they may use similar sensors, there is a huge difference in their AF capabilities. A couple of years ago when I was still using the D200 occasionally, its AF hunting indoors used to frustrate me. Recently I got to test the new D3000, which shares the same Multi-CAM 1000 AF module with the D200, D80, D90 and D5000, and once again it quickly reminds me the same AF hunt issue indoors. I don't think a professional wedding photographer wants to deal with such issues on a regular basis. If you must use a Multi-CAM 1000-based camera, I would stick with the center AF point and recompose.</p>

<p>Another issue to keep in mind is that in the 14-bit capture mode, the D300 drops to 2.5 frames/second. While we are not talking about shooting sports, 2.5 fps is still a bit slow for weddings. I would test that feature out and see whether that is acceptable to you or not. I rarely use the 14-bit mode on the D300 for that very reason.</p>

<p>The D300 smokes the D2.......range. Its processor and AF system is next generation and note that the new D300s has no change to the processor.<br>

I went from an F4s straight to the D300 and it was a huge step, but I'm glad I did stay with the pro range. If anything, it has too many variables and subtleties.<br>

The D300 smokes along in fps and it has an almost 100% viewfinder. You should be able to get a good used one for $1000 if you look hard enough. Add an 85/1.8 and there is your wedding kit.</p>

<p>Shun - what are you shooting @ a wedding where 2.5 fps is too slow? We do the jump shot occasionally and then I'll put the D300 in 12-bit and w/the battery grip, shoot like a machine gun! But for everything else, 2.5 fps is plenty; and I like to shoot! Just curious.</p><div></div>

<p>Shun, I think it oversimplifies the issue to claim that any Multi-CAM 1000 module camera will perform poorly. It's clear to me that Nikon has improved the software that controls this module over time - Having owned both, I can say with 100% certainty that the AF performance in poor light for the D90 is noticeably improved over that of the D80. And I am not the only person who makes this claim - Thom Hogan does and the Popular Photography AF test scores show this as well. I can't speak for the D200, having only handled one for but a few minutes in a store, but considering that the D200 predates the D80, it would not surprise me in the slightest if the D200's AF was inferior to that of the D90, just due to over 2 more years to tune the controlling firmware. Pop Photo's tests basically show that the D90 is even very slightly faster in AF than the D300 (at least at it's intro - Nikon may have improved the D300 AF firmware afterwards as well) at EV6 down to EV2, at EV 1, and 0 they are essentially equal, at EV -1 the D300 is very slightly faster, and it is only at EV -2 where the D300 AF is notably faster.</p>

<p>In any case, the AF on the D90 is no slouch. Despite using the same underlying hardware, it is clearly a faster implementation than it was on the D80 and probably the D200 as well. It's only logical to assume that Nikon was able to tweak the firmware to get this improvement in the intervening 2 years. It could also be as simple as having a larger ROM space in which to pack code on the newer D90. An advantage that the D3000 may not have.</p>

<p>In real life, My D80 often hunted in low light. My D90 is noticeably better in this score using the same lenses.</p>

<p>I would add, I typically see Mint D300 Refurbs with Warranties from Cameta selling for $1200-$1250, and D90 Refurbs with Warranty selling for under $800. I paid $785 for my D90 refurb (it had under 50 shutter actuations on it) including a 90 day Nikon USA warranty and a 3 year Mack extended Warranty about 6 months ago.</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see if the new D300S drives D300 prices down, or if in fact the inventory of D300 new bodies is already nearly totally depleted, which would probably cause clean used D300 bodies to actually go UP slightly in price.</p>

<p>Hi Dave! I can say though after using both a D90 and a D300 that I won't shoot with the D90 anymore unless I <em>have</em> to. The AF system on the D300 is much better than the D90. Don't get me wrong, I think the D90 has a better AF than any Canon camera I used, but it's not in the same league as the D300.</p>