D300 vs D700 vs D90?!

Oooohhhh............
My dilemma:
I´m going to India in the end of january 2009. My trusty D70 has got a deathsentence - some circuit(?) does´nt function well anymore according to Nikonreps. It does´nt yet show when using, but I can´t take the risk. So I´ve decided to upgrade anyway. If it was´nt for the Indiatrip, I would have stay put for a while in camerainvesting because:
1. I´m not sure yet what´s best for me dx or fx. I can afford what I decide, but I want bang for bucks. I´m not professional, but am picky.
2. I´m pretty convinced that within 1 year the D700 will be replaced to a 24mpx sensor - it´s not the right time to buy now
I own two dx lenses; the 18-70 and a 12-24. Works prefectly well for me. If staying with dx I want to buy a 17-55/2.8. I also own prime lenses; the AF versions of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Today I not use them that much - I prefer simplicity.
What shall I do? I am pushed to decide something that doesn´t feel alright.

 

Have you thought about a D3 and D3x? They are perfect for India weather wise. You can use your DX and FX lenses.
More than what lenses you have would be more helpful if you tell us what you like or shoot more. Landscape, macro, wildlife, etc. Then we can see which camera is better for you! D3 or D3x!

 

Bengt,
A 24 MPix D700x defeats the purpose of the D700 - excellent high ISO noise control. Why wait for D700x or a 24 MPix D800 - what specific advantages will it offer you?
If the 18-70mm DX and 12-24mm DX 'work perfectly for you' then why replace with a 17-55mm DX - compared to the much lighter 18-70mm DX it is a very heavy travel zoom by comparision.
If you are looking for simplicity and requiring a forced upgrade from your trusy but now faulty D70 body and you have the lightweight zooms aforementioned then the D90 will reprecent a fine match for your Indian travel plans and will be a fine general purpose camera for after you travels. The D90 will represent a significant boost in performance over the D70. Unless you specifically want a faster AF system the D300 / D700 might be superfluous to your needs.

 

I think the first thing you have to realize is that no matter which way you go it will be a substantial improvement over the D70 in terms of high iso performance, speed and ergonomics. If low light, high iso performance is not a major concern, than there really is no reason to spend the extra money on the D700, especially when you have DX lenses. The only caveat is if you plan to shoot alot of wide stuff, than the FX format is 100% for you.
I would not purchase a D300 when you can get a better performing camera in the D90 for less money and a D400 is probably about to come out.
The D700 being replaced with a 24mp D800 is really irrelevant imo. I subscribe fully to the megapixel myth.
I am in the same boat sort of. I shoot a D200 with a 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8. I am about to dump the 17-55 because it is a beast and buy some primes and trade the D200 for a D700 because I mostly shoot theatrical stuff.
Good luck and enjoy India.

 

I´m using my camera in my everyday-life. That includes everything from landscape to lowlightsituations. I prefer the ordinary angles - no supertele or superwideangle. I just want it to work, but I want reliability and quality.
I really don´t like the feeling to be pushed like now of the situation.

 

Bengt... if that is the case..... we all think different BUT IF IT WAS ME! i would go for a D300. Here is why:
either one of those 3 cameras will be a really good upgrade from your D70 BUT when i look at the price of the D300 and D90, the difference is so minimal and what you get for a D300 is so much more. better built to start with and access to the menu right on your finger tips not like a D90 that everything is in the menu. Those are the 2 main reason why I upgraded from a D80 to a D300. Now you will ask, why not a D700? well, the crop factor 1.5 that you get on a DX camera is so useful to me. Tele lenses are more expensive than wide angles. i like shooting birds and the longest lens I have is a 300 but the crop factor it becomes a 450 mm lens. I can't expend 8 K on a 400 mm lens so the crop is a blessing. same goes when you shoot macro.
The FX camera will be helpful on the wide angle side BUT you can go really wide on DX too. I have a Tokina 11-16 (16-24 on FX) and that is wide enough for anyone. I think an FX camera is more useful to professionals than to people like me who shoot just for fun.
I am sure others will give you their ideas and at the end you will have to figure it out by yourself! good luck!

 

Thank you all!
It´s very easy to be blind by all facts and figures these day - the options are too many!
I´ve been thinking of buying a new camera for a year or so, but the "why fix it if it aint broken"-stylish way of thinking I have did delay the process. When the D300 came I was much interested. The D3/fx did´nt give me a feeling of something I needed at all, perhaps the price? I don´t know. I read all threads on the net on how all people was excited over the fantastic D300. I thought "hey, I wait a little while, but I will get myself a D300"!
Then, suddenly, came the D700/fx out of the blue. And, suddenly, all the threads was filled with people convinced that fx was all that they had been waiting for. The dx was something for amateurs, all too noisy etc etc. Fx will fix everything, including peace on earth! (well, perhaps not exactly, but.....) In half a year!! Give me a break!
I must admit that I was influenced by all this too. But today, when I have to decide, I try to come to my senses again. And what I´ve found this far is that it is complex decition to make. Thas why I wrote to you guys.
Is fx the answer to everything? Why did so many people change their point of view concerning the D300/dx almost over half a year? Did I miss something?

 

I have a D300, it is brilliant. Better (much) then the D200 I also own. People just want to own the best and newest toys. It is NAS (I have/ad it too)
Magnificent camera. Handle the D300 and the D90, to see which feels better in your hands. Take in consideration in what way you will travel. Walking around, maybe the lighter D90 is the way to go, shooting sports, action in low lighting and dirty environment: D300.
Good luck

 

I went with the D700 because of its high ISO performance. Even ISO 3200 shots are remarkably clean. I have no need for more resolution. And I have no regrets in buying the D700.

 

I have the D300. I use it everyday in all conditions. The first thing I did was to place body armor on it for some extra crash protection. If you can only take one camera with you take one that will work in as many different conditions as possible. I believe that is the D300. Enjoy your trip to India and don't forget to take an extra battery or two.
Take Care and Enjoy
Chuck

 

I upgraded from a D200 to a D700 last month. I wanted the best high ISO performance I could get. I am very pleased. I much prefer the control set of the Dx00 bodies over the DX0 bodies. You have lenses for either body already. If you want simple zoom get a D300 and keep your current lenses. If you need better ISO performance get a D700. Personally I don't have any interest in bigger files and very much like the clean images and speed of the D700.

 

Get a D300. You dont have any FX lenses and would need to invest quite a bit to get high IQ with the D700 in your current state.

 

You also have to ask if you NEED 24MP.
How do you use your photos? How big do you print. I think this is more important than what you shoot in many cases. For most of us who rarely print bigger than 8 x 10, there is no substantial difference between 6MP and 24MP, outside of cropping.
I'd get a D300.

 

I'd rent another camera for the trip (any of the camera's you mentioned would work - or another d70) then decide if you want to buy it or wait to buy the next model when you get back. Ask the store if they will take the rental cost off a purchase if you decide to purchase upon return.

 

Get a D 300 for the reasons Rene mentioned. You have two great lenses for it, especially for travel. I know a Nikon Pro whose kit consists of this camera and these two lenses. Joe Smith

 

D3 would be too heavy for walking around with... that's what I tell myself but i still want to get it someday [more so than D700, which might be better for me because of size and long run]. I had F5 for year back in 1999 and when I sold it, it was because of th size and weight, and I got F100 which i had for the following 6 years.
Now I have D300 after D200, and I like it, but there are days like recently when I do want to use my 17-35mm as the ultra-wideangle it should be... on a D700 or D3.
D90 is a compromise, D300 is more of a long term investment and with more "pro" feel and features. D700 could be the optimal choice but the appeal of 1.5x of D300 could outweigh it. Personally I would like D700 for the 1.0 multiplier and to use my 17-35mm.... and there was a posting in the past how a D700 with cropped (in photoshop) image was still just as good or better than 100% image with D300... 12 mpix on a D300 sensor or the bigger D700 sensor makes a difference.

 

I forgot to add that you should either go to a store to examine the cameras in store [and on several different days is even a better idea], and better yet if you could rent one for a day...
to get a real feel of the difference between them, and which choice you could live with for the following year or more. When I got my D300 in april 2008, I wished for D700 just a month later, but I can enjoy my D300 for another year, until the shutter count goes up high and i approach that 100,000 click count, then it will make sense to get something else....... D3 maybe
but not D3X becuase while 24mpix sounds nice, already with 12mpix i am looking at about 1TB (terabyte) of pictures in the past year [a lot to store and backup, or to go through to erase], and more importantly i do want to enjoy [and do more of] night photography and low light, and a picture like this at ISO-1600 with D300 is not quite to my liking. I already find the colors to be dulled at ISO-1600 and i have seen serious quality loss with it too, so I would pick D3 over D3x for it's low light ability.

 

I had the same problem, D300 or D700??
So I bought the D700!!
I do a lot of Theatrical pics! and I have some AF lenses, so I decided in it!!
What I can say is I like this camera!!

 

Thank you guys for your respons to my dilemma!
I still really don´t know my way further on, but at least I know that I should rule out the D90. I´ll check my finances and look for the best deal on both the D300 and the D700 and then I´ll decide. Lucky me to have saved my good old AF primes. The investment will be only the camera and that´s not a bad position to start from.
Whatever it´ll be - I will publish pictures from my trip next year!

 

I've seen used D300's going from reputable dealers on ebay for a little more than $1,000.00 on the auction site, a real bargain if you ask me. If you can bear with having to shoot the 1.5x DX crop, and more noise at high ISOs, the D300 is still an excellent camera. I upgraded to the D700 from the D300 and love it, but it's quite a financial comittment.

 

Based on the types of lenses you have (DX, not the super-expensive-pro kind) and the fact that you want something that just works, is practical and gives excellent results, I'd suggest a D300. A D700 is a lot of money, and with a DX lens you're getting lower resolution (5Mp instead of 12Mp) which may matter at least if you're trying to print. The D300 is an amazing camera, and I doubt many people need 24Mp (jebus). Also, you're used to Dx, and the D300 will be better if you're mostly shooing in that format.

 

"Get a D300. You dont have any FX lenses and would need to invest quite a bit to get high IQ with the D700 in your current state."
Silly statement. You can buy some excellent FX lenses for very little money. THe 50/1.8 will set you back about $100. The 85/1.8 is also excellent. Or you could get the 80-200 f/2.8 ED for about $800 new. And there aree many older MF lenses that are superb.

 

Hey guys - I have primes; the AF-versions of 24, 35, 50 and 85mm.

 

> Lucky me to have saved my good old AF primes. <
> also own prime lenses; the AF versions of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Today I not use them that much - I prefer simplicity.<
Make up your mind. ;-)
Bengt - it doesn't matter which camera you get. They all involve trade-offs which, in the grand scheme of things, are meaningless. Me, I have DX cameras and I see no reason to switch for now.Like you, I have several primes with large f/stops which I can use as required and an 18-200 which provides flexibility when I want it.
If I were to start over, I might go FF because it works better than DX in low light situations, as far as limiting noise. On your trip, if you're allowed to photograph inside a temple in India, being able to use ISO 3200 might come in handy. But it's kind of like a dog chasing its tail - there's always going to be something better to buy six months or a year later, and there's always going to a room too dark, even for and FF camera and a 1.4 lens.

 

Dave, I guess you´re right - I have to make up my mind And I really don´t want to chase my tail..........
It´s a hard decision, mostly because I don´t like to get stuck upon technichal issues but still do just that.... hmmm.
I´m most happy when I have my things in order, taking my pictures. And I´m a little of a cheapskate, that doesn´t make it easier.

 

You said "I´m using my camera in my everyday-life."
Are you willing to shlepp around the 1kg that is the D700?
If not, compare D300 and D90 on www.dxomark.com to find that the smaller, cheaper cam has better IQ - though of course build and options are more pro on the D300.

 

I have the D300. Took it to China with me. Given you description of the types of shooting you do, I would go with the D90. I haven't shot with one but understand it's supposed to be nearly as good as the D300 (depending on whose telling the story). I've handled the D90 in stores. It's lighter than the D300 and smaller. Side by side the difference in size and weight might not seem like much. But when you drag it with you all the time on a long trip, you start noticing the difference.

 

Wait for the price of the D700 to drop...and drop it will. If you do, upgrade to FX..
If you don't mind staying with DX, then the D90 beats the pants off the D300.

 

Bengt, a little tail chasing can be good - if it wasn't, I'd still be using the box camera my mom gave me when I was a kid, and scratching my head trying to figure out where to find film for it.
Yes, it's time to upgrade. Go with what you honestly believe you can afford, secure in the knowledge that you'll completely enjoy using whatever camera you decide to go with.
By the way, are you familiar with the photography of Galen Rowell? He has same of the best low-light portraits of people I've ever seen, from inside Laplander tents to the interiors of Tibetan temples. He did it without access to high ISOs or VR.

 

I just bought Nikon D90 with 18-200mm VR lens. Its a fantastic combination. Camera is so perfect and fantastic results.
D300 is the best but into pro ones if thats what you are after, else D90 is not a bad to start with in Mid pro range (offcouse depends on your pocket how big it is)

 

Bengt -- Plenty of advice on what your *next* camera should be, but as to the malfunctioning D70, were you aware of this problem ? Nikon repairs this particular failure free of charge, irrespective of warranty status.

 

Hi Bengt,
My perspective is from someone that has the D70, shot a whole trip last year on a borrowed D80, and now own a D300. Like you (based on your statements), I am an amateur, and like to get good value for my money regardless of whether I can afford it or not. If your D70 had not malfunctioned, would you have gone with the D70?
The only reason I went with the D300 was that I have always lusted for the autofocus on the F5, and here finally was an affordable way to get this. Other than that, I was blown over by the D80, and the D90 is even better IQ-wise. Simply put, coming from the D70, the D80 (D90 also) has far better image quality in the ISO 400-1000 range, a bigger LCD and a brighter viewfinder, which were the main selling points for me. I think you'd do quite well with a D90. From what I have read, a D90 and D300 would perform similarly in terms of higher ISO images, I find no issues at all with ISO 1600 images for my use.
A D700 would do even better. But before plunging into that, ask yourself how many images you have shot at high ISO, or you have missed because you could not take images at ISO 3200-6400? A D700 would certainly give you shallower DoF with the same lens/position, something to think about though. As far as wide-angle, prior to digital I used to shoot film on a Nikon F, with the widest lens being 24mm. Your 18-70mm on a D90/D300 would give you equivalent to 24mm FOV, your 12-24mm gives you 18mm. How wide do you really need to go for your own needs? I have shot streets in India, China and Europe, and my shooting style never needed wider than 12mm on DX, it will really depend on your needs (and without PC, I find the perspective distortion at less than 24mm equivalent to be quite distracting). We all know the advantages of D700 and FX, and many people need it and use it. Question is, do you need it? OTOH, if you travel to one of India's many wildlife sanctuaries, the DX crop factor might actually be an advantage, depends on your plans.
In short, my pick would be D90, and D300 over that if you want the better AF.
Just another perspective
Shash

 

If you are happy to part with the wherewithall (money), the D700 is my choice for you. Travel photography requires a nimble, flexible approach by the photographer, *especially* in India. So much just happens in front of your eyes, each moment passes into the next very quickly...so I am not a fan of giant heavy cameras (over-priced 'pro' bodies) and zoom lenses of the same characteristics.
Depending on your style, consider a mid-range zoom (like say a 35-70mm) or several complementary high IQ primes: 28mm, 35mm 45mm and 85mm covers most of what you will likely shoot, unless you are focussing on the nature parks for the wildlife..the better Nikkors will stand up to the D700 sensor well. If you are now a zoom guy to help get whatever appears (I do this for travel out of necessity) consider sticking with a D300 with a 16-85mm; much sharper and better than the 18-70, and much, much more usable than a 24-70/2.8 (which resemble artillery pieces). VR gets you enough stops to shoot handheld. That's my MO, if it helps.

 

I am in the same situation. I am upgrading from a D80. My problem is that I have only 1 lens that will let me use all 12MP on the FX chip. All my other lenses are DX. So my choice was down to the D90 vs. the D300. Cheap lenses on the D700 is like buying a Ferrari and only using the first three gears in stead of all six. And FX versions of my big DX zooms (if they exist at all) are way too expensive. As for the D90 and D300, I am going with the D300. It is more expensive and the D90 might give marginally better results on higher ISO, but the autofocus on the 300 is quite a bit better, so even though the resulting image might not be as sharp as the D90, you might not get the shot at all with the D90 because it's AF doesn't perform as well in low light. Now for your average hobby needs this doesn't matter all that much, even though it always stinks when you miss out on a good shot, but if like me you take photos in weddings every once in a while, and other low light situations like indoor sports, the better AF of the D300 (and the optional 8 fps) should be the feature to seal the deal, because in those situations you really can't afford to miss out because your camera keeps chasing the focus around. Other than that the D90 looks very good, and you can capture video with it.

 

Dear Bengt,
here my suggestion:
Just buy D90 + 70-300 VR (as u have 12-24 & 18-70), I used to play with D300 for more than 6 months, in my opinion, D90 is sharper & much lighter (thats important, go light save ur back).
Save your money, 17-55/2.8 is excellent lense, but i think u ll be ok with 18-70, its a good lense.
By the way, dont forget to bring your 35mm. Have a nice trip!
regards,
G* (D90, D40, 17-55mm/2.8, 70-300mm VR, 35mm/2, 50mm/1.8, sigma 50/1.4)

 

Bengt.
If money isn’t a concern, go for D700.
I upgraded from D70/d200 and I find that D700 is just as solid as my old N90x, still have.
12 Mb is so close to the quality of scanned film, you can't tell the difference. Uses it with a 24-70 2:8 at a daily basis, heavy but you will be able to carry it around more than 12 hours/day. I also use my 10,5 DX and it also works very well. With 70-200 2:8 it's a little heavy though.
D700 is fast, has built-in flash, far far better than D70, takes a long time to learn to handle, get Thom Hogan’s e-book.
You won't regret a D700.
Bring your D70 as second as long as it still works.
Have a nice trip
Jens

 

the image quality of d700 is better than d300 especially the skin tones. the image is also very clean and sharp. go for d700! period.

 

I've been to India many times in the last twenty years or so, and the one thing I can tell you is that it's very dusty, not to mention humid. If it were me I'd take the D70, and use it until it died, if it did, and only take out whatever new camera you decide on if it does die. If your only going to buy a new camera in a year, then buy one of the cheapest Nikons you can get away with to bridge the gap. On the other hand, I have a D300 I'm quite happy with and suspect that I'll be keeping it for quite a while. Bruce Campbell

 

I'll suggest a different approach and recommend a D60 with a 16-85. The IQ is great, and it's a small compact body.
My other reason for this suggestion is that there's just too much change going on with dslrs. Even the Panasonic G1 is an interesting option. Don't make the mistake of playing the upgrade game. There's much more to come to the market. The D60 is an excellent camera until the dust settles.

 

Hi Bengt
As a poster above has said, watch the dust and humidity. I come from Bombay [Mumbai] and the dust within the concrete city is *very much* higher than in London, where I live. The Indian countryside [and I assume you'll be going there, too] is far worse than Bombay. How you would clean dust off effectively is another issue, I guess. The 16-85 VR would be a great lens to use for 90% of the time, as is the concept of the 18-200 VR.

The D90 offers the same or better IQ as the D300, and its lighter. However, the D300 has faster and more accurate AF. And has better weather [dust, for one thing] sealing. I havent used a D90 in India, as its quite new, but wonder whether it would be OK against dust in the countryside.
Some of the photos that can be had on high iso from the inside of some of the temples is amazing - I've done it !
Whatever you get, relax and enjoy India ! Anil.

 

Bengt - jag har precis titta på dina foton och nu så saknar jag Stockholm så.... Pappa är i Åre och Mamma i Marieholm... Så det är svårt att åka hem numera. Jag är hemma i Stockholm på Söder speciellt även om jag växte upp i Lännersta utemot Värmdö. Stockholm är att åka hem. Varför skulle mina föräldrar envisas med att flytta bort. Nej ve och fasa. Hem är Stockholm, besöka Gotland, Skåne & Jämtland går bra så länge jag får stanna is Stockholm mest....
Angående kamera. Jag skulle föreslå D300 den är helt enorm. Älskar den. men jag tror D90 är mer vad du är van vid. Köp en av dem. Du behöver inte D700 eller D3.
Ha en otrolig resa & tack för alla minnen dina foton gav mig.
OK so in case anyone wonders.... lose translation...
Bengt, I've just watched your photos & now I miss Stockholm so very much... Father is in Åre ( town in northern Sweden) & Mother is in Marieholm (tiny town in southern Sweden)... It's very hard to go home these days. I'm at home in Stockholm, at Söder (part of Stockholm) even if I grew up in Lännersta (suburb to Stockholm towards the east). Stockholm is to go home. Why did my parents have to insist on moving to other parts of Sweden. (then I babble on & you don't actually care...)
Regarding camera... I recommend you get the D300 it's an amazing camera. I love mine, but I believe the D90 is more what you're used to. Buy one of them. You do not need the D3 or the D700 (I'm basing this on lenses).

Have a wonderful trip & thanks for all the memories you've given me with your photos.
OK that's it
JMHO
Lil

 

Hi Bengt. I won't belabor the Quality or Features aspects of the Nikon cameras you are considering, because frankly, IMHO, ANY modern DSLR is more capable than most people are at photography! (No offense...you may indeed be the exception.) However, I certainly would not hesitate to get either the D90, D300 or D700, with your existing lenses, because frankly, the ultimate arbiter of a "good photograph" is the PHOTOGRAPHER, not his equipment. So that said, go to a store that stocks all 3 bodies, handle them, even shoot your CF card and look at the resulting images at your leisure. I think you should just get a body long before your trip so that you'll have time to get acquainted with it. I wouldn't want to miss a good shot because you were lost in some menu setting! BOTTOM line: Your photographic skill will translate into good images no matter which camera you buy! Have a great trip!
~Steve
[Signature URL removed per photo.net policy.]

 

get D700. for high iso D700 is much better camera. FX would give you at least 1 more stop in DOF control than DX.

 

>FX would give you at least 1 more stop in DOF control than DX.<
Wong, could you explain the above? Because I don't understand.
Will not a 50mm lens on either camera will produce images that are identical in size on either sensor, given the same f/stop and distance from whatever appears in the viewfinder? And thus DOF would be the same. The FF will show a wider field of view in comparison to the DX camera, the DX will show less in comparison to the FF camera - but will not DOF will remain the same for both?

 

The point about increased depth of field with the D700 is simply that because of its superior low light performance you can vary iso and have a smaller aperture for any given shutter speed.

 

Ah - I understand, thanks, Alastair. I mistakenly unlinked the "high ISO" comment from the DOF comment.
The OP asked a question without an answer: he wanted to know how to get the best bang for his buck (D90 - or maybe D300), but he is also "picky." He has lots of primes, but, although he prefers simplicity and he doesn't use his primes much, he's glad he kept them.
So the chore for responders is an impossible one - we can't provide a satisfactory answer to a contradictory question.
So, Bengt, which is more important? Bang for buck, in which case the answer is obvious, or being picky, which madates the D700 (or D3)? That's the question you really want us to answer, and of course, we can't, although we can have fun trying.

 

Am I the only one who read this?

I own two dx lenses; the 18-70 and a 12-24. Works prefectly well for me. If staying with dx I want to buy a 17-55/2.8. I also own prime lenses; the AF versions of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Today I not use them that much - I prefer simplicity.​

Bengt has DX lenses & is happy with them & prefers simplicity. That means either he has to buy FX zoom lenses or stay with DX.
That leaves the D300 & the D90.
JMHO
Lil

 

I must say - Thanks all for helping me out!! I do really enjoy this thread, it has helped me a lot!!!
Finally, I think....., I have decided to stay DX for a couple of years and buy myself the D300 /and my wife says OK...)
BAsically I think it´s more wise to wait a couple of years to see how the FX-buisness developes, pricelevels come down etc... Meanwhile I can continue taking pictures and have fun!
Merry Christmas to all of you and a Happy New Year!
Till dig Lil - God Jul och Gott Nytt År! Hoppas din hemlängtan kan "tämjas"! Jag försöker lägga ut Stockholmsbilder lite då och då. På återhörande!
/Bengt C

 

Smart move, you won't regret it!

 

Thanks Tim! I understand you use one yourself, so I feel safe now.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New year!

 

Bengt,
grattis till ditt beslut att köpa en D300 - - du kommer att har roligt med den. Älskar min.
God Jul och Gott Nytt År tillbaka. Jag kommer att titta efter Stockholms bilderna då och då.
Lil
Translation -
Bengt,
congratulations on your decision to buy a D300 - - you will have fun with it. Love mine.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year back at you. I will look for the photos from Stockholm now & then...
Lil

 

Body: D90. A flat out amazing camera, and the D90 with a 24-70mm f/2.8 at 35mm is sharper than my 5D with a 35mm f/1.4L lens.
Lens: sell the 18-70mm and don't ever get another one. One of the worst AF lenses Nikon has ever made IMHO. The 12-24 would be great but of course the 17-55 would just about cover it all. The 17-55mm is a monster, however, and will make you tired quickly carrying it around. I love the pictures it produces but the weight is pretty oppressive.
Personally, I would take the D90 with the 12-24mm if I were you and I could only take one body and one lens.

 

Bengt
India is very dusty, very humid, and very crowded as you may know. It's probably the last place on earth where you may like to try out a new camera. I go there all the time, trust me.
If I were you, I'd rent one (say, at Adorama) or buy second hand (B&H, Adorama). This will give you a great way to figure out if you like what you ended up choosing.
As to which to buy, I faced the same dilemma as you very recently between the D90 and the D300, and I opted for the latter. The build quality, the main controls at your finger tips, and the superior AF swung it toward the D300.
The price of the D90 has come down, and it may be because Nikon hope to introduce another model between the D90 and the D300.

 

Interesting thread. I am rather in the same situation of deciding between these three cameras (not travelling to India).
I come from Ricoh KR-10x, and since 2000 Nikon F 80 with the MB-16. I have a fine collection of Nikkor AF lenses: 28mm/1:2.8 D, 50mm/1:1.8, Micro 60mm/1:2.8 D (my favourite), 28-105mm/1:3.5-4.5 D.
I used to scan negatives and mainly slides with a Nikon Coolscan III (see my portfolio), but lately the film scanner doesn't work properly anymore and I don't want to pay a second time to fix it. Also, the quality of lab-developed slides has decreased big time.
I also have a Fujichrome S 6500/fd, which has a nice face detection feature and portrait program.
I don't do too much shots but I am into high quality if I buy a new camera. I need something which offers at least the quality and reliablility of my beloved F 80.
I wanted to wait for a D 800, but now the holiday season is approaching and I don't want to wait any longer.
I could afford the D 700 (like the FX format), and was planning to buy it. But then I read great reviews about the D 90 and D 300 also.
Any recommends?

 

Well, I made my choice. I thought the D90 would be just the same class as the F80 as the camera for an ambitious amateur and right now the D90 has just the same price level as the F80 ten years ago.
I'm not disappointed. The D90 is a phantastic camera - though of course you have to care about the settings, especially white balance and exposure, which I found a bit overridden in some situations.
10 years of progress can be clearly seen. I can make photos which were not possible in this way with film and the F80. Also, now I have them directly on the screen and do not have to let them be developed and then digitise them.
Two of my first shots during the last days:
http://www.eisenburger.de/jpgs/Henry_2010-07-02.jpg
The picture of my dog was taken with closed blinds and the 50mm/1:1.8.
http://www.eisenburger.de/jpgs/grosses_ochsenauge_ausschnitt.jpg
The butterfly photo (Maniola jurtina) is cropped and taken with the Micro 60mm/1:2.8 D.
P.S. Nevertheless I will not buy any DX lenses because I have a gret set of full format lenses from the F80 times.